A critical commentary on Archbishop Secker's Letter to the Right Honourable Horatio Walpole, concerning bishops in America

UA"J£

«.

Library

of the

University of Toronto

-

> f

*»• *

1^ •>.*•

f\

A C R I T I C A/L J :

C O M M E N T- A R Y

O N

Archbifhop S E C K E R's L E T r E R

T O THE

Right Honourable HORATIO WALPOLE,

CONCERNING

BISHOPS in A M E R I C A.

/

Medltor effe affalilis,

Et bene procedit.<

P&uJdttm plebem prhnnlum facio meam.

LONDON:

Printed for E. and C. D i L L y, in the Poultry.

M DCC LXX.

{ 3 1

A CRITICAL

C O M M E N T A R Y> &c.

BEFORE we examine the contents of
this remarkable Letter to Mr V/atyole, it
will be necefiary to confider fome circum-
ftances relative to the occafion on which it was
written, the time when, and the reafon why it
was pnbliihed.

Archbifhop Seeker, being himfelf a very fincere
convert from the religious errors in which he had
been educated in the early part of his life, and
zealoufly attached to that fyftem which he after
wards embraced, appears, by many tokens, to
have been folicitous to convince thole whom he
had left, of their dangerous delufions, and to
bring as many of them as he could influence, over
to the Church in which he himfelf had found fo
much fatisfaclion.

With thefe fentiments, and in this attachment
to them, it is not at all furprifing, that his Grace
fliould be deeply enamoured of this project of

A 2 eftablifhing

[ 4 ]

efrablifliing Bifhops in our American Colonies,
By forne intimations in his iermon preached be
fore 'The Society for the Propagation of the G off el
in foreign Parts ) February 20, 1747, it appears,
that the accomplishment of it had early taken
pofleftion of his Grace's affe6r.ions, and from the
tenor of his conduct and converfation from that
time to the hour of his death, we may fafely con
clude, Mr Wdpole^ Letter muft have been a
precious morfel to him, as it gave him an oppor
tunity of figuring on his favourite fubject before
a minifter of ftate.

Mr Wafyble's Letter, we are informed by an
Advertifement prefixed tq the Bifhop's, was writ
ten in the year 1750, to the late Dr Sherlock then
Bifhop of London. It does not appear that Bifhop
Sherlock gave any anfwer to it, either by word or
writing. Bifhop Seeker indeed fuppofes, " that if
" my Lord of London had ever converfed with
" Mr Walpols on the fubjedi:, fince he received
4; Mr WalpQles Letter, he had doubtlefs laid every
ct thing material by way of reply •," yet nothing
of this fort appears, and as nothing in writing by
way of anfwer from Dr Sherlock to Mr Walpole
was known to Dr Seeker *, the more probable
iuppofition is, that Bifhop Sherlock^ convinced by
Mr fPalpoUs Letter of the danger, the folly, or
at lead of the inexpedience of the project, made
no reply at all.

But

* See his Letter, -.p. i.

[ 5 ]

But the moment it is communicated to Dr
Seeker, he eagerly feizes the opportunity, and at
tempts to anfwer the Statesman's objections j very
little, one would think, to that Gentleman's fa-
tisfaction, who from the beginning of the year
1751, to the day of his death, feems to have let
this Letter lie quietly bv him, as other fchemes
might do with other minifters of flate, who
Ihould be in no difpofuion to be amufed with
the vifionary propofals of weak or defigning pro-
jedors.

But fmce his Grace's executors, in compliance
withhis>/ofM^ 25, 1759, have thought fie
to revive this Letter, may we not afk, What is
become of MrWalpols's Letter toRifhop Sherlock ?
That Dr Seeker, and confequently his executors,
.had it in their power to publifh Mr Walpolfs
Letter, is very probable. If any circumftances
made it either impracticable or improper to pub-
liih that Letter, candor and common juftice re
quired, that this anfwer $o it fhould have been
fuppreffed for the fame length of time. If the
public had any claim upon Arch bifhop Seeker for
his fentiments concerning American Bifhops, they
had likewife a right to the whole procefs which
drew thofe fentiments from him. Mr Watyolfe
Letter might have objections in it, which Arch-
biihop Seeker did not think proper to touch, and
his Grace could not be uninformed, that to pub
lifh anfwers to treatifes, which they who ihould

A 3

[ 6 j

judge between the parties have no poflible mean.
of confulting, has always been a (landing and a;
very reafonable prejudice againfl the fairnefs and
impartiality of the anfwerers.

As Mr Walpole's Letter is thus withheld, we
can only conje&ure, that it might be occafioned
by fomc previous conveiTation between himfelf
and the Bifhop of London^ concerning Bifhops in
America. It is very unlikely Mr Waif ok fhould
begin the fubject. Minifters of flate were then
faid to be particularly cautious of giving offence
to the Coloniils, and theie, they could not but
know, had no predilection for Epifcopacy. The
Colonifls, on the other hand, who were members
of the Church of England, were more efpecially
within the Bifhop of Lsndorfs epifcopal depart
ment. It was therefore natural enough for his
Lordfhip to propofe an improvement of their re
ligious condition. It was his peculiar bufinefs
to remove, as far as he could, all obftacles to it,-
and confequently to anfwer Mr Walpolis Letter.
He did not anfwer it. He plainly thought it un-
neceflary.

How then came this province to be turned
over to theBifliop of Oxford? If we look no far
ther than the Advertisement before the Pamphlet,
there is fome appearance of a reafon for it. We
are there informed, that Mr Walpok's Letter was
communicated <to Bifhop Seeker, by the Bifiiop of
London. And hence it might feem, that the

Bifhop

[ 7 ]

Bifhop of London, having either lefs leifure, or
lefs ability, left Mr Waif ok in the hands of his
brother of Oxford. But in the very firft page of
this anfwer, Bifhop Seeker fays, Mr PFalpolis
Letter was communicated to him by WirWalpole
himfelf ; nor does he feem to know any thing at
all of the Bifhop of London's fentiments on the
fubject of that Letter. It may therefore be fur-
rnifed, that Bifhop Seeker was fet to work merely
by his own alacrity in fo good a caufe.

There is little doubt but the editors of this
Letter think themfelves well juftified in execut
ing his Grace's order for printing it after his
death, as well as in taking an early opportunity
to do it. And yet, might they not have had a
reafonable apology for demurring to that order
at this particular juncture, when any attempt at
religious innovations in our Colonies, feems to
be highly unfeafonable ?

At the 1 5th page of this Letter, his Grace
moves a queftion, " Whether the appointment
" of Bifhops in the Colonies, would not ftir up
" dangerous uneafmeffes abroad or at home ? "

There is I think little doubt but that thefe un-
eafmeffes had been reprefented to Bifhop Sherlock,
by Mr Walfole (who had very good opportunities
of knowing) as the inevitable coniequences of
fuch an appointment.

But whatever of this kind might then be appre
hended, Archbifhop Seeker lived to fee uneafine/es

A 4 ija

[ 8 ]

in the Colonies of a very different nature front
any that were dreamt of eighteen years ago i
fuch indeed as might have fuggefted to him, that
nothing could be more uniealbnable, than the
tryifig his favourite experiment at a time when
every wife and good man, and every well-wifher
to the peace and profperity of his Majefty's go
vernment, faw how neceffary it was to avoid all
occafions of irritating the Britim Colonifts of
America. His Grace's arguments, in anfwer to
the queftion abovementioned, whatever weight
they might have in 1751, or even in 1759, are
lighter than vanity itfelf, when applied to the
ftate of things in 1768. And whoever perules
a tenth part of the pamphlets which have ap
peared, during the late altercations on Colony-
fubjects, will eafily perceive, that the publica
tion of fuch a Letter as this, in the midft of thefe
jarrings, would be adding fuel to the flame.
And yet the written order for the printing of it
had laid by his Grace, as appears, from 1759 to
the time of his death, without one reflection of
the very ill effects it might have when he was
gone. And could his executors think of doing
any honour to his Grace's prudence, his charity,
or his moderation, by expoling to the public his
Grace's earneftnefs for advancing his project, at
the hazard of fo much confufion as muft have
attended any attempt to execute it at that time ?

^VAv C&3i4Cu3 ~

Perhaps

[ 9 1

Perhaps it may be faid, that as our Colony-
difputes did not commence till ibme years after
1759, his Grace, through the importance and
multiplicity of other affairs, might forget he had
made an order for printing this piece after his
death. But this I think will hardly be allowed
by thofe who confider, what daily occurred in the
news papers, concerning the project of epifco-
pizing America \ or if it might be fuppoied that
thefe were below his Grace's notice, the exiftence
of fuch an order could not pofTibly efcape his
memory during his Grace's controverfy with
~Dr Maybew, in which fome of the fame topics
are exhibited on the part of his Grace, that we
find in this Letter to Mr Walpole. And as the
fubject has been kept in public view, more or
lefs, to this very time, there cannot be the leaf!
doubt but the Archbiihop was confcious of this
order, as long as he was confcious of any thing.

However, fince this Letter muft be publifhed,
it was not unwifely done to poilpone it till after
his Grace's deceafe. How aptly foever the con
tents of it might have come in aid of his Grace's
other arguments tot American Epifcopacy, he faw
no doubt the additional imputations it muft have
brought him under, from his petulant reflections
upon our domeftic DilTenters, not to mention the
danger of a more mortifying reproof for throwing
a bone of contention when and where the parties
concerned were fufficiently exafperated without it.

What

t 1° i

What (hall we fay for his Grace on this occl-
fion ? Shall we offer the apology that one of his
admirers hath fuggefled for his intermeddling in
the expulfion of the Oxford Students ? viz. " A
" body labouring under great infirmities, and a
" mind perhaps fympathifing with it* and his
" not poflelling in their full vigour thofe great
*c faculties, for which he was once fo eminently
" diftinguilhed *."

But if this apology for his Grace is accepted,
what muft be faid for the editors of the Letter in
qneflion ? Muft not thefe infirmities of body and
mind have been more familiarly known to them,
than to others who had no piarticular connections
at Lambeth ? Will his Grace's order fuffidently
excufe them to the public for a production of this
nature, born fo much out of due time ? It had
been fufficient for their fcrnples on the peremp-
torineis of the order, to have -printed the Letter^
and to have withheld the publication^ till times
more favourable to the caufe it pleads. It is re
markable, that juft before it was advertifed, the
public prints gave us notice, that our Colony-
difputes were upon the point of being adjufted
to the fatisfaction of all parties : and this was the
more credible, as it was announced by writers
who were underftood to be retained as advocates

for

Strictures on Dr NanvePs Anfwer to Pietas Qxonienju,

37» 3s-

[ II ]

for the adminiftration *. At this critical junc
ture, could there be any laudable, any excufable
motive for publifhing theie papers fo full fraught
with provocation to our DifTenters at home, as
well as their brethren in the Colonies abroad ?
And will not this inconfiderate deference for his
Grace's commands, juftify the enemies of the
Church in a common oblervation, that, provided
the dignity and emoluments of the Hierarchy are
but maintained, no matter what becomes of the
civil intereftof the community; and will not the
editors, as well as the author, come in for their
mare of this reproach ?

Pafs we on from thefe preliminary remarks, to
the contents of the Letter.

" The thing propofed, fays Dr Stcker, is, that
" two or three perfons mould be ordained Bi-
«c mops, and fent into our American Colonies, to
" adminifter Confirmation, and to give Deacon'^
<c and Prieft's orders to proper candidates ; and
<c exercife fuch jurisdiction over the Clergy of
<c the Church of England? in thofe parts, as the
" late Bifhop of London's CommifTaries did ; or
" fuch as it might be thought proper that any
" future CommirTaries mould, if this defign were
" not to take place." page 2.

By the alternative in the latter part of this pro-
pofal, it mould feem, that, cc if this defign were

" not

* Particularly by an Eflayift who figured more than once
under the name of CR EO N .

[ 12 ]

" not to take place," it might be thought pro
per to vefl the future CommifTaries of the Bilhop
of London with larger powers of jurisdiction, than
the late Commiflaries had enjoyed, in order to
ftipply the want of Epifcopal jurisdiction; To
what this new jurisdiction of the future Commif-
faries would amount, we are not informed. It
is left indefinite. This we may fafely conclude,
that it would not be thought proper to limit the
jurisdiction of Bifhops to any thing lefs than it
may be thought proper the future Commiflaries
fhould exercife; and this might, and probably
would be, the full jurisdiction exercifed by the
Bifhops of the mother country. What effect this
difcovery will have, upon fome other propofals
in this Letter, we mall fee prefently. In the mean
time we proceed with the writer of it.

" The queftions, faith Dr Seeker > which arife
" on this propofal, are, Is it a reafo ruble pro-
" pofal in itfelf ? And if it be, are there any
" fuch dangers of its being extended to intro-
" duce exorbitant church powers, or of railing
" uneafmefles abroad or at home, as may not-
cc withftanding, at lead for the prefent, be jull
" objections againft it (a) ? "

His Grace fets out with infmuating, that,
ic Mr Walpole feemed to allow the reafonablenefs
" of the propofal, abftra&edly coniidered." But
as this only fcems to have been the cafe, we can
not

(a] Page 2.

not judge under what abftradlion Mr Watyole al
lowed the reafonablenefs of the propofal. This
could only be learned from his Letter, to which
we have no accefs.

Dr Seeker argues for the reafonablenefs of the
propofai from what belongs to the very natpre of
Epifcopal Churches; and concerning this matter,
Mr Walpoh might very widely differ from the

Dr. Mr Watyole might be of opinion, that

many things belong to the nature of Epifcopal
Churches, which the Bifhops of England do not
bring into practice. He might afk the Bifhop of
London^ Whether the Bifhops of 'England enjoyed
any privileges, or exercifed any jurisdiction,
which do not belong to the very nature of Epif
copal Churches ? If yea : it feems expedient to
retrench thefe in the firft place, as mere ufurpa-
tions, feeing that no edification can arife from
the exercife of fuch powers and privileges. If,
on the other hand, the Englifh Bifhops exercife
no jurisdiction which does not belong to the na
ture of Epifcopal Churches; and if it is reafon-
able to fend Bifhops to America, it mnft be rea-
fonable to fend them with the powers and privi
leges which belong to the very nature of the
Churches over which they are intended to pre-
fide. That is to fay, with the powers and pri
vileges exercifed and enjoyed by the Bifhops of
England. But this Dr Seeker did not defire we
fliould believe. Why was he not then more

explicit

[ H ]

explicit concerning the jurisdiction it might be
thought proper the new Bilhops fhpuld exercife
in America ?

" It belongs, fays Dr Seeker, to the very na-
^ ture of Epifcopal Churches to have Bilhops,
" at proper diftances, prefiding over them (£)."
Not only that, but it belongs to the nature of
Epifcopal Churches to have Bifhops at certain
diftances, that is to fay, within certain diftridts
called Diocefes, prefiding over them, and con-
fequently refiding among them. For it muft be
remembered, that there are certain things be
longing to the nature of the Epifcopal Office^ as
well as to the nature of Epifcopal Churches , one
of which is vigilance over the flock of which the
Bifhop takes the charge ^ which cannot be exer-
cifed while he is abfent from them, either in
England or America : and this is equally true,,
whether the Bilhop is diftant feme hundreds, or
fome thoufands of miles from his Diocefe. And
yet we know the inhabitants of fome of our
Diocefes, are, in this refpecl, no better accom
modated than the inhabitants of America^ for
three parts of the year out of four.

If it fhould be faid, Englijh Bilhops can per
form the necelTary acts of vigilance by their offi
cers ftationed in the Diocefe; even fo may the
Bilhop of London by his CommilTaries ftationed
in America.

« But,

(*) Page 3.

[ «s 1

^ But, it is alleidged, that there are Epifcopai
" Acts, which muft be performed by Biihops in
** perfon," and of thefe the firft inftance is that
Qf Confirmation.

Shall we then lay it down for a rule, that it
belongs to the nature of Epifcopai Churches,
that all their members mould be Confirmed ? If
it does not, the Colonifts may do without it.
And that it does not, appears from the practice,
and indeed from the conftitution of the Church
of England. In feveral Dioceies there are no
Confirmations for feveral years. When Confir
mation is adminiftered, it is to children or young
perfons, from the age of thirteen to fixteen in-
clufive.

By Canon CXIL if perfons of the age of fix-
teen do not communicate, they are to be pre-
fented to the Archbilhop, by the Minifter,
Churchwardens, &c. In confequence of this
Canon, thoufands receive the Communion who
were never Confirmed, becaufe they never had
an opportunity. And when fuch communicants
prefent themfelves for Confirmation, they are
told, it is not proper, after they have communi
cated ; which fhews, that how ufeful ibever Con •
firmation may be, where it can be had, where it
cannot ', it is, by the conftitution of the Church
of England herfelf, unneceffary. And after this,
would it be fufficiently refpe&ful to my Lords
the Biihops, or indeed to our excellent eftablifh-

ment

[ 16 ]

ment to fay, that fuch and fuch people, of Cumber
land for iaftance, or Northumberland, or the Welch
Counties, are denied Confirmation, unlefs they
will go to London for it ? or that they are in effect
prohibited the exercife of one part of their reli
gion (0 ?

With refpeft to Ordination, there are two ex
pedients in ufe at prefent for furnifhing the Colo-
nifts of the Church of England with Minifters of
their own Communion; i. By ordaining natives
of America who come to England for that purpofe.
2. By fending Englifh Minifters to the Colonies
from hence.

As to the firft of thefe, Dr Seeker obferves, that

" fending their ions to fo diftant a climate mud

" be very inconvenient and difagreeable, and tak-

*' ing the fmall-pox here is faid to be peculiarly

" fatal to them," i. e. peculiarly to the perfons

who come here for Orders. For when his Grace

mentions a little below, that, " their young men

" of fafhion would ftill come ^England for polite

" accomplifhments/' no apprchenfions of what

would be inconvenient or diiagreeable to them,

are exprefied, nor any mention made ofanypecu-

Uar fatality of the fmall-pox to fuch young men.

*c The expence alfo, fays his Grace, mutt be

" grievous to perfons of frnall fortunes, fuch as

" moft are who breed up their children for Or-

u ders ; and yet not fufficient to bring any accef-

14 fion
((} Letter, page 3,

C '7

<c fion of wealth to this Nation that would be
" worth naming, were more of that rank to

From the caft of this anfwer, one may conjec
ture, that Mr Walpole had objeded to American
Bifhops, that fuch a meafure would prevent the
Colonifts from coming hither, and fpending their
money among us. To obviate this, his Grace
was obliged to fuppofe, that none would fend their
Sons to England to be ordained, but perfons in
mean circumftances. But I am inclined to believe
that the Statesman's objection would itrike a little
deeper, and that the confideration with him might
be, that the more inducements the Colonifts in ge
neral mould have to ftay at home, and the fewer
occafions of perfonal intercourfe with the mother
country, the more they would afpire to indepen
dency -5 a matter of very ferious Confideration
among the Minifters of thofe times*.

The Statesman, no doubt, argued, that if the
Colonifts of the Church of England were impow-

B ered

(d) Letter, page 4,

» I have been informed, that the late Archbimop Seder,
being in conference with an eminent Colonift, defired to know
of him, if his countrymen would be averfe to the fending a
Biihop among them ? Pray, my Lord, faid the Gentleman,
can one Ei/hop make another ? Undoubtedly, replied his Grace,
Why then, my Lord, rejoined the Colonift, you may fend your
Bijbop asfoon as you pleafe, it will I e one confideralle Jlep to
wards our living without you. Here the convention was
dropped,

erecf to manufa&ure Deacons andPriefts for them*
/elves, as well as other things, which they have hi
therto imported from hence, they would in time
have a Church independent upon that in the mother
country •, a confideration of ten times more impor
tance to Mr Walpole> than the money that would
be gained by a few young Men coming to England
for Orders, or that would be loft by their flaying
away.

2. With refpe&to theClergymen of theChurch
of England who are fent from hence, it muft be
a matter of great Concern to all who wifh well to
the interefts and credit of the eftablimment, to be
told by an Archbifhop of Canterbury^ that few of
them, in proportion, " can anfwer the end for
" which they are defigned(^)." That the reft are
" men of defperate fortunes, low qualifications,
" bad and doubtful characters, and a great part
" of them Scotch Jacobites." Is this for the ho
nour of the Society which fends them ? How
greatly does this reprefentation detract from the
credibility of thofe accounts they give us from
time to time, of the fuccefs of their labours in our
Plantations ; which depend, in a great meafure,
en the veracity of men of thefe wretched Charac
ters ? When the public is folicited, as is often the
cafe, to fupply the deficiency of the Society's funds,
by their charitable contributions, will they not

be
W

[, '9 ]

We apt to confider, before they give their money,
upon what fort of Men it is to be expended ?

And how would the matter be mended by fend
ing Bifhops inftead of Prieits ? Every confideration
drawn from the nature of the fervice$ the danger
of the voyage, abfence from family-connexions,
&c. which at prefent ferves to difcourage private
Clergymen of eafy fortunes, good learning, found
principles, and refpectable characters, would ope
rate with equal force upon the mind of a deftined
Bifhop, and create the fame reluctance that other
men have (hewn to engage in fuch an adventure.

Would his Grace have faid in anfvver to this,
that a larger ftipend, an increafe ofpowerj and a
more refpedtable title, would have engaged more
reputable candidates ? I am afraid this would be
only faying, that ambition and avarice are more
reputable motives for accepting the office of a
chriftian Bifhop, than the profpect of a bare main
tenance is for taking the province of an ordinary
teacher. His Grace could hardly think that the
Colonifts are fo much Grangers to human nature,
as not to be aware, that thefe difpofitions are com
mon to Clergy men and others, both of higher and
lower ranks •, and that, with refpect to Bifhops
fent from England to America, the fame hazards
muft be run by the fenders, to which the propa
gating Society is liable in difpatching common
MifTionaries. So that all the good things his Grace
augurates from the appointment ofColony-Bifhops
B 2 would

[ 2° 3

would effectually be fruftrated, if the Bifhops
were no better men (a point his Grace could by
no means infure to the Colonifts) than the Mil-
fionaries he fpeaks of.

His Grace propofes great benefit, and conficler-
able reformation among both the conforming Cler
gy and Laity in our Colonies, by fubftituting na
tives for their ordinary Paftors, inftead of vagabond
ft? -angers, (as he calls the Millenaries lent from
England.} But if native Minifters would (o much
improve the religious ftate of our Church-of-£^--
land Colonifts, why not native Bifhops ? I afk this
queftion, becaufe it appears to me, that his Grace
never dreamt of fupplying the mortality of Colony
Bifhops, otherwife than by recruits from England.
Probably his grand point could not be gained any
other way. Otherwife a native of fome of the
Colonies, not liable to the fatality of the fmall-pox,
or to much inconvenience of another fort, might
come over and be confecrated once for all in Eng
land. Or an Englijh or an Irijh Bifhop might be
found without much difficulty, who would under
take the voyage, without the mortifying alterna
tive of bidding a final adieu to his European con
nexions, and, having confecrated one or more pro
per perfons from among the natives, might return
home, and leave the Colonifts to improve their
religious ftate upon this new inftitution, as they
found occafion. Here indeed would be additional
encouragement to parents to breed their children

to

to the Church, — ftiil more convenient opportu
nities of providing for them handfomely, and
even to build and endow, not only Churches and
parfonage houfes, but Cathedrals and Bifhops
palaces, in which good works they would hardly
mew fo much alacrity, if they found the' honour,
emolument, and power appropriated to Bifhops
fent in fucceffion from England.

And what, I defire to know, would hinder a
Bifhop fent from England from appearing to the
Colonifts in the light of a vagabond ft ranger, any
more than a common Miffionary ? And would
he be more likely, with this ftigma upon him, to
anfwer any of the good ends propoied by his
Grace, more effectually than any other Clergyman
of the fame country ? And this being the cafe,
all that is propofed by his Grace in fending
Bifhops from hence, is a mere empty chimerical
vifion, which deferves not the lead regard.

Mr Walpole muft have been a weak politician
indeed, if he did not fee that Bifhops fent from
England would increafe the evils complained of,
rather than remedy them. He muft have been
fenfible, or if he was not, we may be at this hour,
fchat theColonifts, were they inclined to admit apre-
latical Hierarchy among them (which he very well
knew none of them were) would never be fatis-
fied without having the whole ordering of ic
themfelves, any more than they chufe to be con-
troled in fome other things. And lea ft of all
E 3 would

would they fubmit to be governed by Englijh
Bifhops.

One of the blefTed effects of the reformation
propofed by his Grace (in my opinion the prin
cipal one in his eftimation) was the converfion of
the DifTenters. Accordingly, he ftrains every
nerve to magnify the advantages of this event
to the public, in a political view.

« If, faith his Grace, by reforming them (the
" Colonifts of the Church of England} and in-
" traducing better order into the Churches of
" our communion, more of the inhabitants mould
" come over to it, as tbty naturally will^ this
*' would be a further public benefit. For the
" members of the Church of England will think
kt themfelves more connected with England^ than
» others*."

Have then the non-conforming Colonifts no
dififenting brethren, no kindred, no commercial
interefts, no King in England? Have they lefs
connection, or fewer attachments to England^ on
thefe and other accounts, than the conformifts

themfelves ?

p * Page 5. I have good grounds for affirming, that the
Conformifts in the Colonies in general, fo far from being
*ioit inclined to keep up their connexions with the mother
country, never did fo much by a thoufand times, for the fake
of it, as the Diffenters ever did, before, and for years after
this Letter was written. This however is not meant to ex
clude fome particular public-fpirited Conformifts. Who they
were, and of what communion, who were chiefly inftru-
rocntaj in the late mifunderflandings between the Colonies
and the mother country, I have no inclination to inquire.

C 23 ]

themfelves ? If this had been infmuated by a lefs
venerable character than that of an Archbifhop, I
fhould have been tempted to fay, that the man
muft either be contemptible for his ignorance,
or of an abandoned afTurance, who fhoulcl ven
ture fuch a fuggeftion among thole who know
the truth of the cafe.

His Grace goes on. <c And fuppofing them
" not to be Jacobite^ their acknowledgment of
** the King's fupremacy, will incline them to be
<c dutifuller fubje&s than the DifTenters, who do
" do not acknowledge it." (g)

Sitppo/zng them not to be Jacobites ! whom does
he mean ? plainly the converts from among the
Difienters. But whoever accufed the Non con-
formifts in the Colonies of Jacobitifm, even any
one man among them ? There is therefore not
the lead colour for this fuppofition, unlefs we
fuppofe that thefe converts become Jacobites as
foon as they become Conformifts ; which is no
very defirable effect of the Epifcopal reformation
here held forth.

On another hand, his Grace has more than
fuppofed that moft of the Scotch miffionaries are
Jacobites. But every one knows that all thefe,
to be duly qualified for their office, muft ac
knowledge the King's fupremacy upon oath : a
plain proof that the greater or lefs dutifulnefs of
B 4 the

t 24 ]

the fubjecT: doss not depend upon fuch acknow
ledgment.

But, " the DifTenters do not acknowledge the
" King's fupremacy." I am confident that this
is a mere malevolent mifreprefentation, and that
there is not one Difienter in the Colonies, who
denies the King to be his fupreme Governor -,
and I am perfuaded the fame may be faid for
every proteftant Difienter in Great Britain.

The true cafe is this. The proteftant Dif-
fenters hold, that the civil magiftrate hath no au
thority to interfere in matters of religion, which
do not affecl: the fafety of his government, fo
far as the private judgment or confcience of his
fubjeds is concerned, whether confidered as in
dividuals, or united in religious fociety : and this
they hold, not merely with refpec~l to the autho
rity of a King or a Monarch as fuch, but of the
aggregate power of legiflature however confti-
tuted. And is this principle peculiar to Dif-
fcnters ? Has it not been, is it not (till the princi
ple of as wife, learned, and worthy Conformifts
as ever exifted ? Was it not the principle of
Locke, Burnet^ Clark, Hoadhy^ and others of the
lad generation ? And had the Kings or Queens
of, thofe times when thefe men flourished, duti-
f idler fubjects (to ufe his Grace's elegant lan
guage) than thefe illuftrious perfons, in the king
dom ? Does not the artificial author of the Alli-
tir;ce in Cburcb and Slate, inform us, that this was

the

the principle on which the Toleration Act was
grounded ? And would his Grace himfelf have
ventured to fay, had he been catechifed on this
head, that it was not his own principle too ?

I afk his pardon, I did not think of a pafftge
in this Letter, page 13. where his Grace believes,
" his Majefty hath not a right to order the
" Biftiop of London to recall his Commiftaries,"
And if fo, the fupremacy, according to his Grace's
creed, muft, in this inftance, be in the Bifliop of
London, and not in the King.

For the reft, if it was ever underftood that the
proteftant DuTenters denied the King's fupre
macy, as oppofed to the fupremacy of the Pope,
or of any foreign Potentate, it is more than I ever
heard. In the mean time, it is well known, that
the Diflenters fcruple not to put themfelves un
der the protection of the law, as their dernier
refort, whenever they apprehend their rights,
even as a religious fociety, to be infringed, or
attempted, as was lately notorious in the cafe of
a Diflenter named to the office of Sheriff of
London, which received its decifion in the fupreme
court of judicature of Great Britain.

2. We are now come to the fecond queftion,
namely, " Whether the danger of increafing
" Church power, by the means of eflablifhing
*' Bifhops in America , is not a fufficient objection
*' againft the project ?"

In

[ 26 ]

In the outfet of his Letter, his Grace talks of
" jurifdiction over the Clergy, not only fuch as
" the late Bifhop of London's CommifTaries did
" exercife, but fuch as it might be thought
" proper future Commifiaries JJoould exercife, if
" this defign of epifcopifing, fhould not take
4C place." An infinuation that is utterly incon-
fiflent with his Grace's declaration, that, " con-
" firming and ordaining are the only new powers
" that will be exercifed (&)." Thefe powers of
confirming and ordaining, the Commiffaries never
had ; nor, tenacious as our Prelates have always
been of referving thefe powers to themfelves, is
it probable they will ever confent that future
Commifiaries mould be invefted with them. The
jurifdiction, therefore, that it may be thought
proper thefe future Commifiaries Jhould exercife,
mud fignify that enlargement of Church power
on which the objection is founded. And as this
enlargement is intended as a faccedaneum, in the
room of Epifcopal power, few people will be per-
iuaded it will be lefs obnoxious in the hands of
Bifhops, than it would be in the hands of Com-
mifiaries.

His Grace, therefore, may much more fafely
be believed, when he fays, that, " ftri&ly fpeak-
" ing, it can never be promifed, in any cafe^ that
«c no additional powers fhall hereafter be propofed
" and prefled on the Colonies," than when he

lays,
W P^ge 6.

E 27 ]

fays, " no other jurisdiction is defired for ths
*6 propoied Bifhops, than the preceding Com-
" miflaries have enjoyed."

And yet I know not whether we may not fafely
take his Grace's word, even for this laft particu
lar. Right and Zitle, are very different things
from actual enjoyment ; and if the Colonifts may
be believed, thefe fame Com miflaries have both
enjoyed and exercifed pretended powers of jurif-
diction, highly injurious and oppreflive to the
inhabitants, without any apparent authority for
it.

And of this his Grace feems to have been con-
fcious j elfe why mould his Grace have added,
" and even that" [the jurisdiction enjoyed by
former CommifTaries] " on this occafion, may
*6 be afcertained and limited, more accurately, if
*' it be requifile (/)." But will it ever be thought
requifite, by thofe who think as his Grace did,
that the jurisdiction of a Bifhop mould be after-
tamed or limited to any mark below that at which
the jurisdiction of a CommilTary hath been en-.
joyed? And indeed, does not this gracious con-
cefiion feem to imply that the jurisdiction which
thefe CommifTaries have enjoyed, was in fact,
itHafctrtaintd and unlimited ?

His Grace fuppofes, " it would have been equal
ly right to have oppofed the Toleration Act, on the
apprehenfion, that more, in confequence of this

concefTion,
('') Page 6.

I 28 ]

conceilion, might have been preflcd upon the go
vernment in favour of the DifTenters, as to op-
pofe the fettlement of Bifhops in America, from
a prefumption of increafing the power of the
Church (*)."

But, I conceive, the cafes are widely different.
"Whatever is prefied upon government in fa
vour of the Diflenters, will always be fubjed: to
the control of Parliament. Whereas his Grace
tells us, page 21. " There feems no neceffity that
cc this affair" [of eftablifhing American Bifhops]
" fhould ever come into Parliament." The Bi-
fhops, according to his Grace, " would be ap-
" pointed by the Crown, and will be fuch perfons
<c as the Crown can beft confide in." page 13.
This looks as if the Crown was to have an in-
terefl in thefe Bifhops, diflinct from the intereft
of the public ; and fhould it appear in procefs of
time that the limited powers with which thefe
Bifhops fhould be fent out at the firft, would be
inefficient for the political purpofes of the Crown,
can it be doubted but that they would be imme
diately enlarged ? And can any man fuppofe that
pretences for it would not be furnifhed by our
Bifhops (the only folicitors of the projecl that the
Letter points out) viz. " that it would be a dif-
paragement of the Order, to have Bifhops in
any part of his Majefty's dominions, veiled
with lefs power than the Bifhops of the mother

country.
7-

L 29

country. — That it belonged to the nature of
Epifcopal Churches, that their Bifhops fhould have
full powers to correct the tranfgrefiions as well of
the Laity as the Clergy •, and that without thefe
powers in their Bifhops, the conforming Colonifts
would not have the full exercrfe of their religion ;"
would not thefe pleas be full as forceable for en
larging thofe powers, as they are now for appoint
ing the Bifhops themfelves ? Forceable^ I mean
to the Crown, whofe particular confidants thefe
American Bifhops are to be. And what or who
would there be to fay nay to the propofal, the
Crown having the pffwer, and the Bifhops the
will, to have it carried into execution.

But had his Grace reflected ever fo little upon
what pafled in Parliament before the Toleration
Aft was obtained for the DilTenters, his Grace
might haveeafily perceived, that it was theutmoft
that could be obtained for them ; and that King
William never could prevail to have them brought
into civil offices, but under the restrictions of the
Teft Adi ; and that the Very order of men, who
would, as the cafe above is Hated by his Grace,
have fo much influence towards enlarging the
power of American Bifhops, have hitherto had
fuffitient intereft to prevent any farther favours,
particularly, any thing hurtful to the eftabli/hed
Church^ from being conferred on the DiOenters.

His Grace however affures us, th;it no fuch
thing is intended as pre'ffing for additional powers

to

[ 30 ]

to American Bifhops ; and in this afiertion h«
thinks there are no grounds to queftion the fince-
rity of his Grace and his brethren.

But on this head of fincenty^ I think it was as
much as could be reafonably expected of his
Grace, to anfwer for himfelf ; for afTuredly he
could offer no fatisfadtory proof that others of
his brethren might not intend, what he did not •,
and about the time when he thus undertook to an
fwer for them, it is certain there were Bifhops
who were " thought to be peculiarly fond of
Church-power," and who when " they were
called upon to anfwer for themfelves," gave very
little fatisfacHon by their defences.

His Grace's great argument for this ftncerity is,
the moderation of his contemporaries. To which
I mail fay nothing, but that his Grace was pro
bably the moft improper perfon of them all, to
offer this confideration on the behalf of his bre
thren.

What his Grace's moderation was, while he
was Bifhop of Oxford, I leave to be determined
by thofe who were then under his government j
what it was when he came to be the Head of his
Order, the following admonition, intended for his
brethren in convocation 1761, will fufficiently
fhew.

SEMPER ENITENDUM EST ut ANTIQUI REGI-
MINIS non modo retineamus formam, SED ET
VIM INSTAUREMUS, quatenus vel DIVINO VEL

HUMANO

[ 3' 1

HUMANO JURE FULCITUR. AtqUC INTERIM,

MANCA quodammodo et MUTILA erit WO*»T«*
noftra (/).

That is to fay, We mufl always STRIVE, not
only to retain the form , but to RENEW THE FORCE
cf the ANCIENT CHURCH-GOVERNMENT, fo far
as it is PROPPED UP either by DIVINE or HUMAN
AUTHORITY. And till tbat be done, our POLITY
will be LAME and DEFECTIVE.

Now what was this ancient Church-govern
ment? Even the model left us by fome of his
Grace's PredecelTors and their adherents, who
never wanted props for it (if you would take their
interpretations of fcripture) either from divine or
human authority. And the force of it confifted,
in putting a two-edged fword into tbe bands of
Church-Governors, to execute vengeance upon the
heathen, and punijhments upon the people *. In
plain Englifh, power to correct Heretics, Schif-
maucs, and Diflenters, with the wholefome fe-
verities of whips, pillories, fines and imprifon-
ment.

Without this force, it feems our prefent eccle-
fiaftical Polity is mutilated and lame ; and it is, in
his Grace's opinion, not only right to have this

force

(/) Qratio Synodalis, at the end of his Grace's Charges,
page 360.

* See Pfalm xlix. 6, 7. To which Archbifhop Laud pre
fixed this tide. The Prophet exhorteth to praife God for his
/we fo the Church : and for that ponicer which he hath given to
vie Church, to rule the confciences of men.

[ 3* ]

force renewed, but abfolutely the duty of the mem
bers of the convocation, toftrive to have it renew
ed.

46 Is this the fame man," may fome people fay,
" who feems in his Letter to Mr Walpole^ to be
" fo well contented with the fhare of power en-
44 joyed by the prefent Bifhops, and who would
4t have been fatisfied with much lefs, if he had
" lived where much lefs had been allotted to Bi-
46 fliops ? Is this the man who, Hands forth to af-
4t fure the public, that he and his Brethren are
" not fo fond of Church Power, as to be aiming
44 at that point now, while they folemnly profefs
44 they are not (m) ?"

For my part, I can fee but little room we can
make for the virtue of fmcerity here. In thcLetter
his Grace allures us, with a folemn face and a
fmooth tongue, that nothing more is required for
thefe American Bifhops, than commifTarial juris-
didtion, and authority to confirm and ordain. In
the oration, the ancient Church- government is to
be contended for at all events ; and without the
force of it, the Epifcopal Powers muft be lame and
mutilated. Muft we not argue thus ? this ancient
regimen either belongs to the nature of Epifcopal
Churches, or it does not. If it does not, his Grace
is exhbrting the Convocation to ftrive for fetpporting
the form> and reinftating the force of an ancient
ufurpation. If it does, the fame pretence which

ferves

(m) Page 8, 9,

[ 33 ]

ferves for a colour to ftation Bifhops in America,
will ferve for a pretence to claim for them the
form and force of the ancient government, namely,
the pretence that it belongs to the nature of Epis
copal Churches. And this, I mould think, a-
mounts to fomething more than a prjfibility^ that
an improper ufe may hereafter be attempted to be
made of the appointment of Bifhops for America.
Once more, what fhall we fay for his Grace's fmcc-
rityznd his moderation? thefe two publications are
coeval, and by the time and manner of their ap
pearance, mould feem between them to exhibit
his Grace's dying fentiments.

But the moderation and fincerlty^ concerning
which, in examining his Grace's portions of them,
we are left in fo much uncertainty, we may perhaps
find in his Grace's coadjutors in this project, with
more precifion. It fometimes happens that men
not worth fixpence, will offer their bond for great
fbms, on the behalf of others who are very well
able to pay without them.

" Archbifhop Tenifonf fays hisGrace, " who
" was furely no high Churchman, left ^ioco to-
" wards the Eftablifhment of Bifhops in Amtri-
" <*(»)."

His Grace, I am afraid, is a little unlucky in
his inftance ; I am in fome doubt whether Arch-
bifhop Tenifon's fmcerity in this bequeft, is altoge
ther confident with Archbifhop Seeker's in this
pamphlet, But let the reader determine.

C In

(») Page 9v

[ 34 3

In Archbiflhop Tenifon's Will, executed April
nth, 1715, five hundred pounds were bequeathed
to theSociety for Propagating the Gofpel in foreign
Parts, " for the purchafmg one or more perpe-
" tual advowfons, donations, right of patronage
<e and prefentation of, in, and to one or more vi-
" carages or rectories, and to prefent thereto from
«' time to time, as often as the lame {hall become
" void, one or more of the mod deferving Mif-
« fionaries of the province of Canterbury"

But by a codicil, executed Dec. 2. 1715, his
Grace revokes. and declares this bequeft null and
void, and in the room of it iubftitutes what fol
lows,

" But my prefent Will is, that my executors,
" their adminiftrators or afligns, do well and tru-
cc ly pay to the faid Society, within one month,
" or two at the fart hell, after the appointment and
" confecration by lawful authority of two Protef-
<c tantBidiops, one for the Continent, another for
" the illes mNorlb America^ the fum of one thou-
" fand pounds, to be applied in equal portions to
" the fettlement of foch Bifliops in the fore-men-
ci tioned Sees. Until fuch lawful appointment and
" confecrations are compkated, I am very fcnfible
" (as many of my brethren of that Society alfo are)
" that as there has not hitherto been, notwithftand-
" ing much importunity and many promifes to the
" contrary \ fo there never will or can be any regular
" Church discipline in thofe partsy or any confinna-

" iions

[ 35 J

ic tions or due ordinations, or any fetting apart in
€l ecdefiaft-ical manner * of any public places for the
" mere decent Worflrip of God, or any timely pre-
" venting or abating of factions and dw'ifions, which
<c have been and are at prefent very rifs •? no eccle-
" fiafiically legal difcipline or corrections of fcanda-
" lous manners, either in the Clergy or Laity ^ cr
u fy nodical affemblies, as may be a proper means to
" regulate ecciefiaflical proceedings. In the mean
" time, //// fuch appointment and consecration as
*6 abovefaid is comileated., my Will is, that my
" executors do not pay the faid thoufand pounds,
<c or any part or portion of it, or any intereft for
" the whole or any part of it to the faid Society,
" but as they have opportunity, to put out the
<c faid fnm or part of it to intereft upon fure pub-
" lie funds, and to apply fuch intereft to the bene-
Ci fit of fuchMiffionaries, being Englifh men, and
4; of the province of Canterbury^ as they fliall
" find upon good information, to have taken true
" pains in the refpeclive places which have been
46 committed by the faid Society to their care, in
" the faid foreign Plantations, and have been by
" unavoidable accidents, ficknefs or other infir-
" mities of the body, or old age, difabled from
<c the performance of their duties in the faid places
" or precincls, and forced to return IQ England"
Such is the bequeft of Archbifhop fenifon^ in
which we may obferve a very different plan of
American Epifcopacy from that delineated by his
c 2 fucceiior,

[ 36 ]

fucceflbr, Dr Seeker, in this Letter. We have here
the whole Hierarchical apparatus of Englifh Epif-
copacy enumerated in the minuted manner. Regu
lar Churth difcipline— Confecration of Churches. ~-
Prevention of factions and divi/ions9 (meaning, I
fuppofe, provifions for uniformity) — Due Ordi
nations (which the Colonifts are fuppofed to want,
for it feems till aBifhop is appointed there never
will le any fuch) — ecchfiafticaily -legal corrections
loth of the Clergy and Laity. And to crown all,
Synodieal affemblies to regulate ecclefiajlical proceed
ings.

From the tenor of this codicil, and particularly
from the words, in the mean time, till fuch appoint
ment and confecration as abovefaid is compleated, it
is clear, that till this fyftem of Prelatical jurisdic
tion is fettled in North America, both on the con
tinent and in the ides, the executors of Archbifhop
3*emfeti, their adminiftrators, or affigns', will not
be obliged to pay a fingle fixpence of the thoufand
pounds to the propagating Society ; for that fet-
tlement is plainly the confederation for which the
legacy is left : confequently, it cannot be applied
to the maintenance of Bifhops with the limited,
and no more than commifTarial jurifdidion, for
which Dr Seeker pleads.

It cannot in the lead be doubted, but his late
Grace of Canterbury was well acquainted with the
contents of this codicil, fo far as it related to the
appointment of American Bifhops. Why then

did

[ 37 ]

did he content himfelf with this general mention of
the legacy, and fupprefs the conditions of it ?
Plainly for too very obvious reafons.

1. Left Mrl^alpole fhould fufpect his Lord-
fhip'sfmcmty in affecting to defire no more power
for American Bifhops, than he feems to plead
for in this Letter. Mr Walpole would be certain
that Dr Seeker^ in cafe he carried his point for
American Bifhops, would not confent to give up
this Legacy of Archbifhop^//^ ; and he would
naturally conclude, that upon the event of ap
pointing fuch Bifhops, Dr Seeker^ as a man of
fenfe, and a man of politics, would make the pre-
fervation of the legacy, an argument for granting
the additional jurisdiction defcribed in the codicil.

2. The particulars enumerated in the codicil,
are utterly inconfiftent with the character of no
Ugh Church-man, for which he would recommend
the example of Archbilhop Tenifon. The exhibi
tion of them would indeed have made a farther
difcovery, equally unfavourable to the views and
principles of many of Dr Tenifon'j brethren of the
Society ', who are reprefented as equally fenfible with
his Grace, that all thefe Ecclefiaftical neceffarm
would follow the appointment of Bilhops, and
could not be had without it ; and confequentiy
would quite fpoil Dr Seeker's argument drawn from
the " univerfal defire of his brethren, and of the
" members of the Society, as well Laymen as
" Clergymen, of eftablifhing Colony Bifhops,

03 «« from

[ 3* ]

" from tbe Revolution to this day j" and induce a
luJpicion that the converfon of the Indians was
but a blind, a mere pretence of the high church
men, to obtain a charter for the nobler purpofe of
eftablifhingBifhops. For hisGrace exprefsly tells
us, that, " this whole body of men, almoft ever
" fmce it was in being, hath been making re-
46 peated applications for Bifhops in America (0).'*
Behold then the cloven foot which his Grace, no
doubt, thought was fufficiently covered by this
general reference to Archbifliop Tetiifon's legacy,
as he might be pretty fureMr Walpole would hardly
go to the Commons to confult the original.

I am however perfuaded, that there have been,
and flill are numbers of that refpedable Society,
who fall not under his Grace's crude reprefentation.
I could, if it was proper, point out fome mod wor
thy men, whofe names were not long ago upon
the lift, who thought no better of the epifcopizing
project than Mr Walpote, and particularly as de-
fcribed in A rchbilhop fenifon's 'codicil. But the
artifice was plaufible to bring the whole body into
the fame predicament, with a man of Archbilhop
Tenifen's Moderation (for fuch that worthy Pre
late really was) at their head.

But if a man of moderation, how mall we ac
count for this fcheme of Epifcopal difcipline efpouf-
cd in this codicil, and on which the good old man

lays fo much ftrefs ? could he be ignorant that it

was

M

[ 39 ]

was the exercife of the fame powers from which
the original Colonifts of America fled into the
wildernefs ? On the other hand it may be afked,
could this be the fame man, who in the year 1689,
pleaded for admitting the difienting Clergy into
the Church without reordinauon by Bilhops ?
Could this be the fame man, who had experienced
fo feverely in 1700, how improper Synodical af-
femblies were to regulate ecclefiailical proceedings,
or to prevent and abate factions and divifions (/>) ?

The truth is, this codicil was executed but
twelve days before the Archbifhop's death, when
the powers of judgment and reflection may well
be fuppofed to have been greatly impaired. His
Grace was then in the eighty- fifth year of his age,
worn out with the effects of a fevere gout, and
other infirmities incident to fo late a period of life-
He was then alfo in the hands of two or three
reverend Doctors, who have fince had many op
portunities of difplaying their attachment to the
Church in the mod eminent ftations, and who
would not fail to fugged to the expiring Prelate,
the merit and the glory of contributing to a
fcheme fo beneficial and fo honourable to the
Church of England. That this Archbifhop was
then under fome fuch influence, is highly proba
ble from his mentioning in the codicil, that
" many of his brethren of the Propagating So-
c 4 " ciety,

(/>) Memoirs of Archbifhop Tenifon, page 13, 14. and

77—101.

[ 40 ]

" ciety, were fenfible as well as himfelf of the
" neceflity of fettling Bifhops in America* for
" the wife ends there fignified -," which naturally
refers to fome converfation on the fubject ftill
frefh in his mind, of which he retained the im
preffions fo long at lead as was neceflary to an-
fwer the purpofes of his advifers. But though
Archbifhop Tenifon had not remaining upon his
mind " thofe ftrong impreflions of the terrors of
" ecclefiaftical influence," fo prevalent " at the
<c latter end of Queen Anne's* and the beginning of
" King George the firft's reign -," yet it feems
thofe impreflions ftill remained with " perfons
*< in public ftations," which fufficiemly accounts
for the hints in the codicil, viz. " the much im-
<c portunity, and the many [unperformed] pro-
" mifeSj" of eftablifhing an Hierarchical juris
diction and difcipline, in the north American Co
lonies. The Minifters, were aware of the cha
racters of the importuners* though the honeft,
unfufpecting Archbifhop was not.

In one word, great allowances ought to be
made for the failings of fo great and fo good a
man as Archbifhop Tenifon* but nothing can be
more invidious, or more injurious to his charac
ter, than to hold them up as examples for imita
tion.

To proceed. His Grace would have it be
lieved, that " fome people have apprehended,
" that the appointment of American Bifhops will

" tend

" tend to the deprefTion of the Hierarchy, as it
" will afford the Laity here an example of Englifh
" Bifhops abroad with no other than fpiritual
" powers ; which may tempt them to think of
" reducing the Bifhops at home to the fame con-
" dition (q).'>

Had his Grace thought proper to inform us
who they were that formed fuch apprehenfions,
we might poflibly have hit upon fome method of
fatisfying them, different from that his Grace
hath taken ; which, it is not unlikely Mr
Walpole might confider as a fneer. If thefe ap-
prehenders were fuch as my Lords the Bifhops
had convinced, that none but what his Grace
calls fpiritual powers, were to be granted to their
American brethren, it would be hard to fay what
melancholy confequences they might not draw
from a contemplation on the hardfhip and in
dignity of fuch a limitation.

But to raife thefe drooping fpirits, his Grace
very comfortably allures them, that all is fafe and
fnug at home, as heart can wifh. " I fhould be
" very willing," fays his Grace, " for the bene-
" fit of thofe of our communion in the Colonies,
'* to run a greater rifque than I conceive this to
" be." And the reafon of his Grace's fecurity on
this head was, it feems, that it is " no longer a
" fecret, that the temporal powers and privileges

;« of

(f) Letter to Mr Watyole. page 10.

[ 42 ]

" of my Lords the Bifhops, are merely concef-
" fions from the Hate (r)."

Here one would imagine, thefe men of appre*
hevfion might afk, tc But, the (late obferving
*c from the examples of American Bifhops that
" thefe temporal powers and privileges might be
" fpared, is there no danger, that it might take
ts them away?" To this indeed his Grace gives
no anfwer, though Mr Wai-pole muft know he
had a very fubftantial one in -petto •, namely, that
though the ftate might do this, yet as long as the
Bifhops, with thefe powers and 'privileges conti
nued to make as harmlefs and ufeful a branch of
the conflitution as many others, they run no rifque
that the ftate ever would.

This was dextrous enough : for had this rea-
fon been given, it would have occurred to another
fort of apprehenders, that the ftate might poffibly
think thefe temporal powers and privileges as
harmlefs and ufeful in the hands of American Pre
lates, as they are and have been in the hands of
their Lordfhips at home ; and in confequence of
that notion, would hereafter confer them •, an
apprehenfion which might have brought his
Grace's fimerlty a third time in qu eft ion. And
indeed I am fo far from thinking this as unlikely
to happen as moft things, that I cannot but be of
opinion, that, had American Bifhops been ap
pointed about the time this Letter was written,

his

(r) Page 10.

[ 43 1

his Grace would have lived to fee this event, and
yet have- been very able to juftify his fincerity by
faying, " Pray, Gentlemen Colonifts, do not
" blame me. I was very fincere in propofing to
" limit your Bifhops to fpiritual powers : but who
« am 1 5 that you Ihould expect me to control
« the policy of the ftate?" Could Mr Walpde
forbear failing at the management of his cor-
refpondent ?

After an uncandid, not to fay, unjuft compari-
fon of the Church and State principles of the in
ferior, with thofe of the fuperior Clergy, and
telling us, by way of ftriking the balance, " that
" there never was a time known when the upper
" part of the Clergy were fo univerfally free from
" wild high Church notions (j)," his Grace,
very incautioufly complains, that " the regard
" which the bulk of the people bad for religion,
" and the teachers of it, is greatly diminifhed,
« and diminifhing daily, to a degree," fays his
Grace, " which I wonder wife men are not alarm-

" edat(0?"

It had been well, his Grace had mentioned the
time when the people bad this undimlnijhed regard
for religion and the teachers of it, that both the
fa6t and the reafons for it might have been afcer-

tained

(s) Witnefs his Grace's Leflures, Charges, and Synodal
Oration, and fome other performances, well known to have
been fabricated under his Grace's patronage and infpeftion.

(0 Page 12.

t 44 ]

tained with precifion. The lulk of the people
at a certain period, a moft undimmi/hed regard for
Dr Henry Sacbeverel, and the fort of religion
which he, and a number of other teachers, took
care to inculcate. I would hope his Grace did
not allude to thefe times, or to teachers like thefe.
I would fuppofe thefe were the times of thofe
wild high Church notions , which his Grace dif-
claims for himfelf and the upper part of his bre
thren. In what refpedt then, does the regard of
the bulk of the people for religion, and the teachers
of it, appear to be diminifhed, in times fubfequent
to thefe ?

His Grace fhould by no means have left us in
the dark on thefe heads, left it fhould be fuf-
peded, either that this diminijhed regard is owing
to fome default in the teachers, or that the teach
ers who complain of it, require more regard than
is due to them. But it was more efpecially ne-
ceiTary his Grace fhould have been more explicit
on this article, as in the very next period his
Grace feems to follicit an increafe of political
power for the teachers of religion, in order to re
cover this diminifhed regard from the bulk of
the people.

" It is as important, fays his Grace, even in a
" -political view, that they," [the teachers of re
ligion] " fhould be able to do good, as that they
" fhould not be able to do harm." A cireum-
Itance that is plainly recommended to the confi-

dcration

[ 45 3

deration of thofe wife men, who, to his Grace's
furprife, are not alarmed at the prefent difregard
of the teachers of religion.

Now in this political view, the teachers of re
ligion cannot be enabled to do the good required,
but by an increafe of political power. The fpi-
ritual power of preaching the word of God, and
of adminiftring with all diligence to the fpiritual
welfare o| their refpective flocks, none of the efta-
blifhed teachers of religion in this happy country
can be fuppofed either to want, or not to employ
under our excellent and unalterable ecclefiaftical
fyftem. Some people indeed are apt to think
that more good might be done in this fpiritual
way, than is done; and will perhaps be ready to
fay, let the teachers of religion, from the higheft
to the lowed, firft try what good may be done
towards recovering this regard of the people, by
the ferious and diligent application of their fpiri
tual powers ; and if this, upon a fair experiment,
fhould be found to be inefficient, it will then be
time enough to move for an increafe of their po
litical power.

But what is extremely unfortunate for his
Grace's argument, the Colonifts of our commu
nion it feems, are in the fame predicament with
the bulk of the people in old England.

" Nor do I find,5' adds his Grace, " that bi-
*' gotry to the Church prevails among the mem-

4< bers

« bers of it in our Colonies •," (u) which can
only fignify, (as that claufe falls in with what goes
before) that, the regard of the bulk of the Church
of England Colonifts for religion, and the teachers
of it, is equally diminiflied among them, as in the
mother country.

Will not then an increafe of political power be
as neceflary for thefe new teachers of religion in
America, as for the old ones at home ? And muft
not their limited fpiritual powers be as ineffectual
for a reformation there, as they have been found
to be in England ?

" The Bifhop of London's CommiiTaries," his
Grace believes, " have gained no accetfions to
<c what was granted them originally." (w) The
contrary of which is the truth, as will be feen be
low. Not to mention, what has been often
hinted, that the CommifTaries have frequently
found the means, not only of pretending to, but
of exercifing powers which never were granted
them.

<c But the Bifhops will be more narrowly
" watched, by the Governors, by other Sects, by
*c the Laity, and even the Clergy of their own
" communion." (#)

But what kind of men muft thefe Bifhops be
who want fo much watching^ and that by perfons
fb differently interefted in their appointment? if
his Grace knew that this would be the cafe, he

muft
(«) Page 12. (w) Page 13. (*) Ibid.

[ 47 1

muft have known likewife, that it could only pro
ceed from zjealoufy, entertained by the -Colonifts
of all ranks and denominations, of the natural
tendency of this Epifcopal appointment to encroach
ment and oppreffion. And with thefe fentiments,
how could his Grace imagine fuch appointment
would itir up w dangerous uneaftneffes? But indeed
when we confider the different circumftances to
which this variety of watching muft be directed,
one cannot help fuppofing that dangerous uneofi-
nefies muft be the natural confequence of this abun
dant vigilance.

The Governors would watch according to their
directions from home, which would probably be,
that the Bifhops (the confidants of the crown)
Ihould not fuffer from any diminution of the re
gard that is due to them ; the other feels would
watch, on the contrary, that this regard mould
not arife above what they imagine is due to them,
which they would fix at a much lower ftandard
than the Governors would think reafonable ; the
Laity would watch, that they might not be ha-
Tafled with Ecclefiaftical cenfures •, and the Clergy
would watch to inforce them, and to fupport the
regard due to Epifcopal Power ; and in that they
would certainly find their account, as the Bifnops
muft have the power of rewarding, or at leaft of
recommending the meritorious, as well as cenfur-

ing delinquents.

However,

[ 48 ]

However, that the Bifhops would be more nar
rowly watched than the CommifTaries have been,
is contrary to all experience. A man would have
little chance for redrefs againft the arbitrary acts of
a juftice of the peace, who could not obtain fatis-
faction for the infults of a petty conftable. One
cannot but wonder his Grace fhould not feel the
ridicule to which this childifh reprefentation would
expofe him.

The remainder of his Grace's lucubrations in
this paragraph, are built upon the fame fort of
hypothefes ; militating partly againft matter of
fact, and partly againft each other, as where he
fpeaks of "Governors watching theBifhops," who
" will neverthelefs be fuch perfons as the Crown
44 can left confide in (jy)." Might not his Grace
as well have faid, that the Governors would be
more narrowly watched by the Bijhops? and again
<c a right of recalling them may be referved to the
4C King." Does his Grace mean, a right of put
ting an end to their function ? fo it fhould ieem
as, ex hypotheji^ this recalling muft be on account
of their mifdemeanours. It is a jfftf/in'iz/queftion,
and I fhould like to fee an anfwer to it, from fome
of thofe to whom his Grace has bequeathed his
principles on the article of Church Authority.

His Grace haying done his endeavour to quiet
our apprehenfions with refpecl to an increaie of
Church Power among the Americans, by lending

them
13-

[ 49 1

them Bifhops, on mere fuppofitions and probabi
lities, proceeds to ftrengthen his cafe by referring
to actual precedents !

ic It ought to be confidered further, fays his
" Grace, that an Act of the laft feffion of Parlia-
" ment [ 1 749] which pafied without any oppofition
" from any body, hath exprefely eftabliJhedMQ-
" R A v i A N Bifhops in America, who have much
" higher and ftricter notions of Church Govern-
" ment and Difcipline than we have(z)."

Bold and furprizing ! His Grace ventures no
lefs than the fuppofition that Mr Walpole muft ne
ver have feen the Adi in queftion, nor have known
any thing of the contents of it.

Can any Man of common Senfe underftand lefs
by the words, exprefely eftablijbed* than that the
Act gives thefe Moravian Bifhops a power to ex-
ercife their function, afligns them their ftations,
and fecures their ftipends ?

And yet the cafe is only this. The Moravian j,
to whom this Act relates, are fuch as fcruple to
take an oath, or to ferve perfonally in the army.
This Law difpenfes with them in both thefe Ar
ticles, upon condition of their making a folemn af
firmation inftead of an oath, and paying a fum of
money fufficient to hire a fubltitute to perform mi
litary fervice in their room.

But left the Government fhould be impofed upon
by perfons pretending to be df the Moravian So-

D ciety

(*} Page 14.

[ 50 ]

ciety who are not, it is enacted, that every one who
claims the benefit of this act, (ball produce a certi^
ficate figned by Come Bifhop of the faid Church,
or by the Pafior of fuch Church or Congregation
who fhalJ be neareft to the place where the claim
is made, that he is actually a member of the faid
Church.

And to prevent frauds or forgeries of falfe certi
ficates, it is farther enacted, that the advocate of
the faid Church, fhall lay or caufe to be laid be
fore the CommiiTioners for Trade and Plantations
a lift or lifts of all the Bifhops of the (aid Church
who are appointed by them to grant certificates as
afcrelaid, together with their hand- writing and ufual
feal, and the names hand-writing and feals of any
Bifhops that mail hereafter beconfecrated by them,
as afortfaid ; and the names of fuch Paitors, as fhall
be authcrifed by the faid Advocate or Bifhops to
give certificates in any of his Majefty's Colonies
in America (a).

Undoubtedly his Grace might give what names
to what things he pleafed, and fo might call this
an Act for eftablifhing Moravian Bifhops in Ame
rica. But we are not obliged to adopt his Grace's
ideas. Ic is not even faid that thefe certifying Bi
fhops fhould be refident in America ; and for any
thing that appears, they might be fuch as refided
in England, Poland, Pruffia, Silefia, &c. in all
which, and in other places, the Act fays, the Mo
ravian Church is fettled.; and thefe Bifhops indeed

are

(a) 22* G £ 0 R G 2 II. C2p. 3<C.

[ 5' 1

&re juft as exprefefy ejlablijbsd by this Acl, in thofe
countries, as in America.

His Grace affirms, that this Acl was pafled
without any oppofition from any body. Bur, Ri-
miu^ the virulent chaftifer of the Moravians, af-
fures us it wasoppofed by a certain member, upon
a fuggeftion, that " the Moravians in Germany had
" made the greateft part of Proteftants run mad
•* by their devices." When he could not prevail
ro have the Bill thrown out, the fame perfon pro-
pofed that they fhould be reftrained from making
converts-, which was likewife difregarded, for a rea-
ion which fhall be mentioned by and by(£).

" Why then" fays hisGrace f arguing a /<?r//0n)
" fhould there be fuch fear of eftabliming Bilhops
«• of the Church at England?"

A queftion which fuppofes thefe Moravian Bi-
ihops wereeftablifhed with the knowledge and con-
fent of the Colonifts -9 which every one knows
could not be the cafe j and in all probability this
Ad was pafled, before the Americans knew that
any fuch thing was thought of. And even with
refpect to our own people at home, BifhopZ,awV;£-
fon, who knew as much of what paffed in parlia
ment as his brother of Oxford, informs us, that
*' the fettlement of the Moravians in thefe King-
" doms feems to have been obtained furreptitiousfyi
46 under pretence of their being a peaceable inno-
D 2 " cens

(£) Preface to the Supplement to the Candid Narrative,
page cxvii.

t 52 ]

" cent fort of people." But his Lordfhip hoped
that " their iniquity and filthinefs being laid open
" by Mr Rtmius and himfelf, they would be com-
" pelled to emigrate, as had been found neceffary
<< in other countries (£}."

Doubdefs his Grace's argument a fortiori hath
great force and propriety, in reference to this pre
cedent.

His Grace's expoftulation indeed is founded on
the confideracion, that " the Moravians have much
*' higher and ftricter notions of Church Govern-
*« ment and Difcipline, than we of the Church of
" England have." Well then, let us confider
what fort of Biihops thefe Moravians have among
them.

The Unit as fratrum, in whofe favour the Act
under confideration was made, are faid there, to
be members of the Church which was formerly
fettled in Moravia and Bohemia : the remains of
which was then fettled in Poland. Among thefe
Count Zinzendorf was ordained, or if you pleafe,
confecratecl a Biiliop at Liffa. But here, " all
*' their Minifters were on an equal footing, the
" oldeil of them, without having refpect to the
" importance of his cure, is always chofen a fe-
w nior or elder for the fake of Ordinations, and
<c is nothing elfe but primus inter pares, having
*•* not the lead jurisdiction or authority over the

" other

(£) Preface to the Moravians Compared, page xiv.

[ 53 ]

" other Clergy (r)." This give; us no very ftrik-
ing idea of the high-Church notions of thde Mo
ravians with refpect to Church Government and
Bifcipline. And would the Englifh Bifhops defigned
for America, confent to a reduction of this kind,
perhaps the Colonifts might ^ive the project a far-*
ther confideration.

But fuppofing the Moravian Bifhops to be ex-
prefsly eftabliihed in America, and to have all the
prelatical powers with which our Englifh Bifhops
are inverted, what is the confequence ? A very
unfortunate one for his Grace's project, if Mr
Rimius is to be believed, who when he wanted to
exclude the Moravian Bifhops from exercifing their
function in England, confronted them with zCanon
of the ftrftNicene Council, which enjoins, that two
Bifhops {hall not prefide together in the fame city.
The Moravian Bifhops, according to this doctrine,
have a canonical title by preoccupation^ and the
Englifh Bifhops muft be excluded of courfe from
America, on the pain of being cenfured as unca-
nonical interlopers.

" If for want of thefe" [Englifh Bifhops] con
tinues his Grace, " the Moravian Bifhops fhould
" ordain fuch Minifters for our people as they
" thought proper, or fhould they, by ad minis-
" tring confirmation, or by the reverence of their
" Epifcopal Character, be continually gaining
D 3 converts

(c] Rimius ubi fupra,

C 54 ]

** converts from us, it would be a very undefire-
" able thing on many accounts, particularly on
'* this, that mod of them refufe taking oaths, and
cc bearing arms."

Had I been of counfel with the publifhers of
this Letter, I Ihould certainly have advifcd them
to have fupprefTed this pafiage, unlefs they could
have added a note to (hew that thefe converfions
had actually been made by the Moravians in
alarming numbers, and that undefireable confe-
quences had proceeded from them. As mat
ters now turn out, this idle fcarecrow is con-»
figned to contempt and ridicule by the experience
of twenty years, during which no fuch events have
been heard of.

But this is not the worft. His Grace, by this
unwary auguration isexpofed to a very obvious re
flection, namely, that " a power of ordaining and
" confirming, together with the reverence of the
cc Epifcopal Character, are very likely means of
" continually gaining profelytes." And what
was undefireable with refpedt to thefe Moravian
Bifhcps in his Grace's account, we may be fure
would be undefireable in the account of the Non-
conforming Colonifts, with refpect to Bifhops of
the Church of England. They will therefore con-
fider this infmuation as the effect of his Grace's in
advertently dropping the mafk, and as exhibiting
a full view of his expectations from the eftablifh-
ment of Bifhops in America.

But

I 55 1

But after all, on what accounts would thefe
converfions be undefireable ? one would have ex
pected from an Englilh Prelate to have had one of
thefe accounts at lead fpecified, as affecting the
religion of the converts, viz. the undefireablenefs of
having our people converted from a better religion
to zworfe. But then, what mult have been (aid
for Archbifhop Potter, who, in a complementary
Letter to Count Zinzendorf, fo highly extols the
orthodoxy of the Moravian Church •, u acknow-
" ledging its full agreement with the Church of
" England, both in the purity of the primicive
<* faith, and in the defence of the primitive dif-
" cipline ?" and if Dr Potter w&fmcere in this,
we may be very fure that how high and ftrict foe-
yer the notions of the Moravians may be concern
ing Church Government and Difcipline, they arc
neither higher nor ftricter than the notions of the
Church of England on thofe fubjeds, if a learned
and orthodox Archbifhop of Canterbury may de
termine for her(^).

It was mentioned above, that when the act in
favour of the Moravians was under the confide-
ration of Parliament, a certain member who op-
pofed it, not being able to prevail to have it thrown
out, propofed to have them retrained from mak
ing converts. This was likewife rejrcVd, " the
" majority" fays Rimius, " taking thefe people
D 4 " for

(f!) Biographia Britannica, vol. vii. Art.
Rem. [G,J

[ 56 ]

cc for the ancient Moravian Church.3' Which af
fords another reafon why his Grace (to whom
this tranfadion could hardly be unknown) would
not mention the converfions made by the Mora
vians as undefireable on a religious account, as the
parliament had feemed to determine, that the re-
Jigious principles of the Americans would not be
hurt by their being converted to the Moravian
fyfiem.

His Grace's political reafon for (landing in
awe of thefe cowve'Jiom, would, I fnppofe, be lefs
confiderable with Mr Walpole, as nothing unde-
Jtreablt, of this fort at lead, ru:d arofe from the
Penfylvanian Quakers, who profefs the fame prin
ciples with thefe Moravians.

The nonjuring Jacobite Bifhops in our Colo
nies, we may well fuppofe to be mere nonentities,
as his Grace himfelf is fo very doubtful about
them.

" But popifh Bifhops alfo," his Grace appre
hends, 4C have recourfe to the Colonies from time
*; time. At lead," fays his Grace, " the Bifhop
C4 of Quebec hath no fmall influence in a very
" important new fettlement of ours." (e)

A (hrewd writer in the London Chronicle of
Augitft 22, feems difpofed to believe, from the
mention here made of this new fettlement, that
this Letter to Mr W&lfoUe is certainly /puricus,
as this fettlement was not curs till eight years

after
(e) Letter, page 15.

[ 57 1

after the date of it. To which might be added,
that from the time this fettlement became ours,
till after the peace of Fontainbleau^ there was no
popifh Bifhop at Quebec. Nor indeed could this
claufe be pen'd, unlefs by the fpirit of prophecy,
till the year 1764, when the prefent popifh Bi
fhop of Quebec, embarked in England for his
new diocefe, where he could have no perfonai
influence, great or fmall, before his arrival.

But initead of relying upon this as a proof that
this Letter is fpurious, I am inclined to think it
more probable, that his Grace thought proper to
retouch this favourite refcript from time to time;
retrenching poffibly fome topics he had made
ufe of in his anfwer to Dr Mtybew's obfervations,
and adding others, as new incidents arofe relative
to his fubjecl. Of this there are, if I miftake
not, evident traces in other parts of this Letter,
though none perhaps which afford fo manifeft
indications of a mind fympatbizing with I0^/y ;#.
families.

For might not his Grace have been afked,
How came this Bifhop of Quebec by his no fmall
influence ? How came he there at all ? Was not
the eftabli/hment of a popifh Bifhop in an impor
tant new fettlement under his Majefty's govern
ment, a matter worthy of the interpofition of a
protefhnt Archbifhop ? Was not his Grace then
at the head of the Church of England ? And was
it ever heard that his Grace rernonftrated either

in

in public or private, againft a meafure fo feem-
ingly inconfiftent with the interefts and honour of
the Church of England, and even with the fafety
of our proteftant government ?

This is not the firft time I have heard thefe
queftions afked •, and I wifh I could fay I had
ever heard a more fatisfadtory anfwer to them,
than that the profound filence obferved on that
occafion, was with a view to obtain a precedent
for fettling Church of England Bifhops in
America.

But whatever might be the reafon of his
Grace's acquiescence at that period, certain it is that
the toleration of a popifh Bifhop at Quebec, has been
brought as an argument for eftablifhing pro
teftant Bifliops in the Colonies, in certain dif-
courfes delivered before a certain Society, where
his Grace prefided ; and in this very pamphlet
his Grace was not afhamed to plead the example
of popifh Bifliops at home, who, he tells us,
tc perform the fame religious a6ls by connivance*
" which he propofes his American Bifliops fhould
" be impowered to do by authority." (/)

Can thefe precedents be decently pleaded by the
fathers of the Church of England for eftablifhing
proteftant Bifhops in America, but upon the fup-
pofition that the toleration of popifh Bifhops is
ablblutely void of danger, both here and in

America ?
(/) Ibid, page 19.

[ 59 1

America ? And yet, to ferve the fame turn ano
ther way, his Grace, mod inconfiflently fuppofes
the danger from the influence of the Bifhop of
Quebec to be great, and flill greater from the
neglect of not having Bifhops of our own in that
country to counteract this influence. Which
however, is an hypothefis contrary to a known
fact. For to what can this counteraction amount
in the Colonies where a popifh Bifhop is permit
ted by more than connivance ^ when, as we learn
from his Grace on another occafion, popi/b Bi-
Jhops refide here and perform every part of their
function without offence and without cbfervation, (g)
in fpite of the vigilance of twenty- fix Prelates of
the eftablifhed Church, and the terror of ftrict
Jaws, wifely provided by our proteftant anceftors
3gainft the pernicious effects of the intolerant fpi-
rit and deftructive principles of thefe very
Bifhops.

We are now arrived at the third queflion, viz,
" Whether fuch an appointment, however harm-
" lefs and ufeful it might be other wife, would
" not ftir up dangerous uneafincfles, abroad or
" at home ? And here," fays his Grace, " it is
** afked, If the members of our Church in
" America^ would like to have Bifhops among
" them, why they never petitioned for them ?" (b)

This queftion, without all doubt, came from

Mr

(l) Anfwer to Dr Mayhe<u?s obfcrvations, page 66.

(b) Letter* page 15.

[ 60 ]

Mr Walpole, and therefore we may fafely take it
for granted, that no petition for Bifhops had ever
been offered on the part of thefe Church of Eng
land Colonifts, It will be necefTary to give his
Grace's anfwer to it in his own words.

<6 Surely their omitting it may well be afcribed
<c in part, to the thoughtlefsnefs of mankind
** about their religious concerns, which hath been
" fo peculiarly great in thofe countries, that fome
" of them did not petition for help, when they
" had no one office of Chriftianity adminiftred
" among them." (*)

Turn over the leaf, and there you will find it.
thus written, " Indeed of courfe it fhculd be pre-
" fumed, and none but the very flrongefl evi-
" dence admitted to the contrary, that all perfons
'* defire to have within their reach, the means
" of exercifmg their religion completely." (k)

What is now to be done to reconcile the faft
to the prefumption ? We are to prelume, that all
perfons defire, what the thoughtlefsnefs of man
kind, and ftrong evidence from a molt remark
able cafe to confirm it, plainly mew that all per-
fons do not defire.

Take the matter of fact, and you find the
Church of England Cotonifts in ib abandoned a
flate of negligence and indolence about their re
ligious concerns, that there is not the lead proba
bility that a whole bench of BiPnops would recall

them
(/) Ibid. (k} Page 16.

[ 61 ]

them to a due attention. For it appears by the
fequel, that miffionaries have been fent them un-
petitioned for, without the leaft good effect. They
continue as thoughtlefs about their religious con
cerns as ever, as appears from their not petitioning
to have the complete exercife of their religion
within their reach.

Take the preemption, and you mud conclude
they are perfuaded that they already have within
their reach the means of exercifing their religion
completely without Bifhops ; and that his Grace
was only inventing reafons for their not peti
tioning fuitable to his own ideas.

I (hall not inquire into the matter of fact,
namely, how far any part of the Colonies, was
ever without the adminiftration of any one office
of Chriftianity among them : I have been told, ic
is not true \ but be that as it may, I have his
Grace's own teftimony before me, given when he
was Bifhop of Oxford, that they who were in the
mod deplorable circumftances of this fort, were
not flack in petitioning for relief.

" In thefe circumftances,9' faid the8iihopofOtf-
ford* " the poor inhabitants made from ALL PARTS
" the mod affecting reprefentations of their de-
** plorable condition, the truth of which was but
" too fully confirmed by their refpective Go-
" vernors, and the perfons of principal note

" among

[ 62 ]

" among them V In this variety of hi3
Grace's accounts, what are we to believe ?

Another reafon why thefe Colonifts did not pe
tition, is, that " probably too many of their
" Clergy think, they may both live more negli-
*' gently, and have a better chance for prefer-
" ment now, than if a Bilhop were to infpect
66 them, and ordain natives to be their ri-

This may be a reafon why thefe negligent, af-
piring, envious Clergymen, mould not petition,
but is rather a reafon why the Laity Jhould^ efpe-
cially if " they defire to have within their reach,
" the means of exercifing their religion com-
" fletely •," for this they can no more have under
negligent paftors, than they can have it with
out Bifhops. But indeed, if the Lay-Colonifts
took their meafures from experience and hiffory,
they would hardly think the negligence or ambi
tion of their paftors were likely to be cured by pe
titioning for Bifhops. It is hardly to be fup-

pofed

* See the Bifhop of Oxford?* Sermon before the Society
for the Propagation* &c. Feb. 1740 — 41. page 5. fecond
edition, oftavo. It is certain that all parts of our American
Colonies, were never in this deplorable condition, and that
any reprefentations of that fort muft be falfe, unlefs, by a
mean and difreputable equivocation, the preacher meant, that
the offices adminiilred by the rion -conform ift paftors, are not
offices of Chriftianity. Confult Dr Mayhews obfervations on
the charter and conduct, &c. chapters v, and vi.

(/) Letter, page 15,

[ 63 ]

pofed but thefe Colonifts muft have fome concep
tion how matters have flood in the mother coun
try in former times, as well as in the prefenu
They rnuft be aware, that there have been times,
at no great diftance from the migration of their
anceftors to America, when the Bifhops of Eng
land were deprived of their power. The prefent
age, wherein the Bifhops of the mother country
enjoy their power under the protection of the
Hate and the law, they have before them in full
contemplation ; and they may if they pleafe,
compare the diligence, humility, and fimplicity
of common paftors and minifters of the Church
at thefe different periods. They will at leafl
perceive, that there were more temptations to
negligence and ambition in the one fituation,
than in the other. Commendams, difpenfations
for pluralities, and fine-cures, (the parents of non-
rtfidence, and the lures of ecclefiafiical ambition j
are appendages to Epifcopal Churches, and, as
fome people imagine, fubftantial obftructions to
chriftian edification. There is a chance at leafl
that religion would be upon a better footing
where the Clergy have not thefe indulgences to
look for : and they who are negligent and am
bitious without them, would hardly be mere di
ligent or lefs afpiring when they are thrown in
their way.

At length his Grace fuggefts a third reafon to
Mr Walpole why thefe Colonifts did not petition

for

[ 64 ]

for Bifhops, which is, that " the inhabitants
" of the Colonies, living at fuch a diftance, and
44 not knowing when an Application to the Go-
'* vernment might be feafonable ; and being
" afiured, that the Bifhops here, efpecially the
<c Bifhop of London, and the Society for Pro-
" pagating the Gofpel, would always be atten-
" tive to this point, have left it to them. And
4C they to whom it is thus Jeft, have received abun-
<c dant proofs, that very great numbers of the
" Laity of the Church of England^ in thofe coun-
" tries, of higher as well as lower rank, earneftiy
" dejlre to have Bifhops fettled there, and think
" it would be a mod valuable public benefit (;#)."
But how comes it that Mr JValpole^ a minifter
of (late, fhould never know of all this ? How
comes it, that the Bifhops and the Society to whom
this matter was left, with fo full confidence, that
they would always be attentive to it, never either
petitioned the Government themfelves on behalf
of thofe who put this confidence in them, or ap-
prifed the Government of the earned defires of
thefe Colonifls to have Bifhops fettled among them ?
Whatever his Grace might do, I am perfuad-
ed Mr Walpole did not quibble upon the word, pe
tition ; but afliirediy meant that it never appeared
to the Government, that the Colonifls had any
fuch earneft defires to have a Bifhop among them :
and that whatever had been laid before the Govern
ment
(m) Letter, page 16.

[ 65 ]

ment by the Biftiops and the Society, of this fort,
had fallen fhort of the proof that was required.

The real truth, I believe, is, that the mifTiona-
ries have been from time to time inftructed to ufe
their endeavours to procure fuch petitions from
the Colonifts, in which fome of them have not
been remifs, as appears fufficiently by Dr Brad-
bury Chandler's Pamphlets. But, as it fhould feem,
without any effect, except perhaps, fome intima
tions from their Governors andCounfellors who are
appointed in them other country. Every one knows,
that his Grace, after his accefHon to the See of
Canterbury^ was particularly afiiduous in promot
ing an Epifcopal eftablifhment in America^ in
which pious project, Mr dptborp and the faid Dr
Chandler feem to have been his mod con fide rable
inflruments. And as no body ever heard of thefe
earneft defires of the Colonifts to give into this-
fchemefo early as the year 1750, before the notice
given us in this Letter, it is probable his Grace
might have been privately at work on this project,
from the moment he was invefted with the lawn.
Whether he had any coadjutors, after the demife of
Bp Gibfon, (from whom moft probably he derived his
entetement for thisMeafure) I cannot fay ; but from
that period the Bifhop of Oxford was undoubtedly
the mafter workman, and knew more of the pains
that had been taken at home and abroad to carry
the point of petitioning, than any of his brethren.
But unfortunately Mr Walpole happened to know

£ as

[ 66 ]

as much as the Bifhop of Oxford-, who, for want
of the abundant proof that Mr Wdpole had reafon
to demand, is obliged to fly to the miferable ex
pedient of prefuming upon, what he had himfelf
before fhewn to be contrary to the matter of fad.

But the' this affair of petitioning could not be
brought about, yet his Grace informs us, that
" the Bifhops and the Society, to whom this mat-
" ter was left, had found no caufe to imagine that
" any oppofuion would be made to it from that
" quarter (o) " Which is cautioufly enough
worded, and perhaps implies no more, than that
it was more reafonable for them to believe the ac
counts tranfmitted to them by their own Mifiiona-
ries, than thofe which came from any other quar
ter.

" It is true," fays his Grace, " fome of them
41 have provided againfl enlarging the jurisdic-
tc tion of the Commiflaries ; but pone of them
tc have expreffed any public reluRance to the ap-
Jt pointment of Bifliops (p\"

.Some of them\ i.e. of the lay Colonifts of the
Church of England. But thefe, whoever they
were, could not thus provide without fome public
act of the whole body, or of the whole reprefen-
tative. Whence I fuppofe the Government would
eafily conceive with what reluctance they would
liften to the appointment of a fuperior power,

when
(o) Page 1 6. (p) Page 1 7.

r 67 i

when they had been fo careful to provide againft
the opprefllon of an inferior (j).

If

(q) How they were difpofed towards the appointment of
Bifhops, about this time, may be underftood from the follow
ing anecdote. In May 1749, Eliakim Palmer Efq; introduced
Mr Hooper (one of the Council ofjfar&ofaf, poffefled of a con-
fiderable plantation there) to the Biihop of London [Dr Sherlock].
Mr Hooper •, on thatoccafion, told his Lordfhip, that "he and
all their people difliked the project." He informed his Lord
fhip Jikewife, that his Lordfhip's Commifiary there, requefted
an A 61 to impower him to fufpend fuch Clergymen as were in
famous in their lives. One Clergyman of unexceptionable
character, oppofed it, and fo the power was granted for three
years only. One of the firft acts of this Commiffary was, to
enfnare this good man. At a public meeting they put an in
gredient into his punch, to make him drunk. So foon as he
found himfelf not well, he quitted the place, and went home
ward. His way was through a long narrow paffage. There
they placed a common whore, who, as inftrucled, clung about
him, with other indecencies. The good man however Ihook
her off, and went directly home. They had placed two men
about this narrow paffage to obferve what pa/Ted. The next
day he received a fummons to appear before the Commiflary,
to a charge of being drunk and picking up a whore, and tak_
ing her into that paffage to gratify his luft. The two men
witneffed againft him, and the Commiflary fufpended him.
The whole parifh were diffatisfied, and applied to the Com
miflary to take off the fufpenfion, but he refufed. They then
applied to the Governor and Council to ufe their intereft with
the Commiffary, that he might be reftored to them. They
did fo, but to no purpofe. The people, nettled at this refufal,
demanded a libel againft another Clergyman of an infamous
and profligate characler. The charge was proved, but the
Commiffary did not exercife his power ; for this latter was at

E 2 the

[ 68 ]

If the Colon! (Is exprefTed no public reluctance to
the appointment of Bifhops among them, it was a
teftimony of their good fenfe and prudent caution,
as no public attempt had been made towards fuch
an appointment. His Grace indeed fays, that,
" for above forty years pad, the inhabitants there
" muft have had frequent notices, by various

** ways,

the head of thofe who requefted the Court to grant the power.
When Mr Hooper had told this ftory to the Bifhop, he added,
'• And now, my Lord, will you Tend a Bifhop to us, who
«' will have this, and greater powers?'* His Lordfhip an-
fwered, // is not I that fend Bifhop* to America, it is the Society
for Propagating the Goj'ptl in foreign Parts, who are the movers
cfthit matter. Mr Hooper replied, " I do not care who are
" the movers, but this I can with confidence afTure your Lord-
" fliip, that if ever a Bifliop fets foot on our Ifland, the people
•« will to& him into the Sea." This fo affecled the Bifliop,
that he told thofe concerned, they had beft drop the defign of
fending aBifhep to the Sugar- Jflands, for thofe people were
too hot to be dealt with, and Hick only to the other part of
the propofal, viz. to fend one to the Continent. In confe-
quence, Letters were written to Virginia, to get Letters from
thence, requefting a Bifhop might be fent there. But a Gen
tleman concerned for that Colony in England, being aware of
this fecrst negociation, immediately wrote to one of the prin
cipal Gentlemen of the Council there j by which means the pro
ject was difappoih.ted for that time. It will, 1 fuppofe, hardly
be doubted that the Bifhop of Oxford was at that time one of
tJ:o/£ concerned in this Epifcopizing fcheme; and yet, he can
not be fuppofed, to have witten this Letter under a confciouf-
nefs of thcfe facts, without the utmoft difingenuity: not to
mention, that he could not fuppofe but Mr Walpole mud know

enough

<c ways, that fuch a defign was in agitation." p.yj.
Poffibly they had ; but thefe were notices only of
fecrec cabals and intrigues of particular perfons,
and perhaps fome private application to men in
power. But while the defign was kept private,
and confided to a trufty junto, the red were at
liberty to deny it, and then, what would the Co-

lonifts

enough of thefe proceedings to be able to contradift him.
And therefore to fave Dr Seeker the reputation of \i\$ fmcerity y
we muft conclude, that my Lord of London did not choofe to
communicate to him the particulars of the intelligence he re
ceived from Mr Hooper > or to make him privy to his Lordfhip's
correfpondence with Mr W&tyvh. We fee, fiifliop Sherlock
difclaimed having any particular (hare in fending Bifhops to
America, and lays the prcjecl to the account of the Propagating
Society, where no doubt he had obferved theBifhop of Oxford's
headlong zeal for accomplifhing this meafure at all events ;
and being a man of infinitely more prudence, as well as abi
lities, than Dr Seeker, he determined to have no more to do
with him in this affair, than was unavoidable, as a Member
of the Propagating Society. The Editors probably thought it
might be giving fome confequence to his Grace, to reprefent
him in the Advertifement, as going hand in hand with Bifhop
Sherlock in this Epifcopizing pfoject, and might hope that the
inconfiftency of this reprefentation with what his Grace hath
recorded in the firft page of his Letter, would be overlooked
by his Grace s friends and admirers. But have they not rather
given occafion to fufpecl: by this piece of art, that his Grace
had no more confequence \vich Mr Walpole, than with Bifhop
Sherlock ? And that however his Grace came by a fight of that
Gentleman's Letter to Bifhop Sherlock, his pretended Anfwer
to it was never out of the confines of his fludy till the memo
rable year 1769 ?

E 3

lonifts have got by their public relit fiance ? Even
the honour of being laughed at for trufting to un
certain rumours, and fighting with a fhadow ?

His Grace next proceeds to quiet the apprehen-
fions of thofe who might be made uneafy by the
confideration of the ex<pence required to maintain
thefe colony Bifhops, and tells us, " it is not in-
" tended to burden the Crown or the fubjedt with
«« it." p. .7.

As if the gifts and contributions, mentioned
juft after by his Grace, would be no burden upon
the fubjefi ? Some families mult want what is thus
given and contributed, for what they will think,
perhaps, more neceiTary ufes. How often have we
had Briefs for the purpofe of fupporting the Soci
ety's unmitred miffionaries? And would his Grace
have infured us, that none of thefe would be cir
culated for the nobler purpofe of fupporting the
dignity of Bifhops ? And are thefe no burden to
the fubjecl: ?

But where was his Grace's memory, where was
the modeity of the Editors of this Letter, who could
let fuch a declaration pafs, after Ht'Thomas Brad
bury Chandler had been at the pains to calculate bow
inconfederable a tax upon the Americans would be,
to maintain a requifite number of American Bi
fhops-? And how fcurvily does this Dr come off,
(when preffrd upon this head by Dr Cbauncey] with
a filly quibbling cMinclion between, ct what it
«' would be equitable to pay," and tc what, no
44 man, if he denied to pay, would deferve to be

44 confidered

[ 7' 1

" confidered in the light of a good fubjeft, or
" member of Society (r)."

His Grace, after acknowledging that the Pres
byterians and Independents of New England > have
fignified their di/like of his project of lite ^ conde-
fcends to fay, that, " there never was any thought
" of placing them there." p. 18.

How does this agree with Bifhop Sherlock's ex
hortation, " to (lick to the propofal of fending a Bi-
" (hop to the continent ?" But whatever his Grace's
thoughts might be in 1750, it is certain that New
England^ after his promotion to Canterbury^ was
the principal object of his Grace's cares for Epif-
copal reformation in America. However, fo tender
was he of giving thefe people offence- at the time he
was writing to Mr IValpole^ that his Grace is
pleafed to allow, that "• if they mould object
" againft Bifliops coming occafionally to officiate

" amongft

(r) The Appeal defended, or, the propofed American Epifcopate
^vindicated) in anfaer to the ofyetffans and mifreprefentation* of
Dr Chauncey and others. By THOMAS BRADBURY CHANDLER,
D. D. New York, printed by Hugh Gaine, at the Bible and
Crown, \n Hanover Square, 1769. p. 249, 250. Whoever will be
at the pains to compare this Defence with Dr Seder's Letter to Mr
Walpole, will very ferioufly lament Dr Chandlers misfortune in
being ftationed three thoufand mi/es from HIS Biihop, by vvhofe
inftrudlions the Appeal was written, and for whofe honour ic
was to be defended. He might otherwife have avoided the
mortification of feeing his high pretenfions to the lights and
privileges of the American Epifcopate, fo remarkably con-
traded with his Grace's humble conceffions, in an hour of
dependency.

E 4

r 72 i

" amongft thofe of the Epifcopal perfuafion in
" that province, — that might be omitted."

Now it is well known, that the Society's Mif-
fionaries in New England have always been more,
in a double proportion at lead, than in the other
provinces in America. In the year 1761, about
thirty Mifflonaries were Rationed in New England^
while in New Torky New Jerfey^ Penfyhamay
North Carolina^ South Carolina^ Georgia, the Ba
hama JJlands, and Barbadoes^ there were no more
than forty-nine, according to the Society's Ab-
flratts. (j)

If then, notwithftanding the reafonablenefs of
the propofal in the abftracl, notwithftanding what
belongs to the nature of Epifcopal Churches, and
the indifpenfable necefTity of Confirmation to the
complete exercife of their religion •, notwithstanding
the neceffity of overlooking the conduct of va
gabond ftrangers, fo indifferently qualified, as his
Grace reprefents many of them to be, — If, I fay,
notwithftanding all thefe confiderations, the per-
fonal miniftrations of a Bifliop in New England,
where there are thirty Epifcopal Churches, may
be omitted, it feems fcarce worth the while to
fend BiPnops, with the expenfive appointments,
fuitable to the dignity of their character, to pre-
fide over forty -nine Miflionaries difperfed in eight
extenfive provinces, where even the fingle cere
mony of Confirmation, to be completely exer-

cifed,

(s) May!:e%v s Obfervations, page 45. London edition.

[ 73 ]

cited, could hardly be performed by the labours
of ten or a dozen Bifhops, if the uninftrucled
Negroes are to be taken into the account.

After all, his Grace feems to be confcious*
that the true queflions would come to this, Whe
ther dangerous uneafinefTes would not be ftirred
up in the Colonies, by the appointment of Bifhops ?
And whether the Colonifts would not have fuffi-
cient grounds for their uneafinefTes, from their ex
perience of the incroaching nature of Epifcopacy ?

In anfwer to this latter queflion, his Grace thinks
fit to fay, that the Colonifts, " cannot fail to
" know how much the Epifcopal power exercifed
" heretofore by Bifhops, hath iong fince been
" leflened, and the inclinations and principles of
" thofe who are intruded with it, altered for the
" better." (/) This hath been confidered before,
and we need only refer for an anfwer to it, to the
pafiage quoted above from his Grace's Oratio Sy-
mdalis. Let us add however, as this matter is
dnce more come upon the carpet, that what his
Grace afcribes to the letter inclinations and 'prin
ciples of himfelf and his contemporary brethren,
is confidered by other ftanch Churchmen, as an
unhappy relaxation of that ancient difcipline,
which the Church wifhes, in one of her offices, to
have reftored. Of this complexion is the zealous
Dr Thomas Bradbury Chandler^ whom every one
now underftands to fpeak the real, undifguifed

fenfe,

(/) Page 1 8.

[ 74 ]

fcnfe of Dr Seeker •, both in the Appeal^ and in his
Defence of it.

.*' The want of primitive difcipline in the
" Church at home," faith this diligent Mifllonary,
" is no proof that the want of it is not ftill greater
*' in the Colonies, nor that the want cannot in
" fome degree, be remedied by the propofed
" Epifcopate. We think that a ftric~l difcipline,
" with regard to the American Clergy, might
<c be exercifed under an Epifcopate. This is cer-
ic tainly expetfed. IT is AN IMPORTANT PART
«* OF OUR PLAN ; and that American Bifhops
*' would difappoint us in this refpeft, none have
<c a right to declare, until the experiment fhall
" have been made." («)

Why no indeed, worthy Dodor, I dare fay the
Colonifts have no fuch fufpicion ; and therefore,
I prefume, it is, that they are fo unwilling, and
with great reafon, to have the experiment made.
How little was this ftrenuous champion aware,
while he was writing this, that fome of his fellow
pupils at home were convincing the world, that
there was a time, when their common patron
had denied every word of it ; and that in fpite of
his Orailo Synodalis, this denial was agreeable to
his dying fentiments ? After this, truft, ye Colo-
nifts, if you can, to the fmcerity of thofe who
folicit an American Epifcopate. None of you
can be at a lofs to know what a high-flying Epif-
copalian means by primitive difcipline^ while the

hiftory
{u} Jfpsal dtftndedt page 103.

[ 75 3

hiftory of the fettlement of your anceftors in A*
merica remains. None of you can be ignorant,
that t\\e jurisdiction required to carry this primitive
difcipline into execution, mud be as different from
the plan delineated in this Letter, as your own
plan is from thac of Archbifhop Laud. For
while his Grace is alluring you, that, " no more
*' authority is defired for American Bifhops, than
" the diflenting Minifters exercife here by law,
16 or popifh Priefls and Bifhops by connivance:"
Dr Chandler ', whofe inft ructions are of a later
date, betrays his own and his party's cxpeffationSj
that a ftritt primitive difcipline ', with rejpeffi to the
American Clergy, without diftinction, may be
exercifed under this new Epifcopate.

Attending his Grace to page 19, we find fome-
thing like an apology for the propagating Society's
fending Letters into America. One would wifh
to know, what circumftance of Mr tfalpolis Let
ter, gave occafion to it. Making due allowances
for his Grace's palliations and glofies, the cafe
feems to have been this. The zealous promoters
of American Epifcopacy in the Society, finding
that the want of petitions from the Colonies was
a confiderable obstruction to the project, fent
Letters privately to their confidants to procure
fuch teftimonies, (viz. that the Colonifts approved
the mealure) as might be a balance at lead
againft the atTurances the government had re
ceived, that they were averfe to it. The practice
came to be detected, and the alarm being taken

[ 76 ]

by the friends of religious liberty; the too proba
ble confequences of it were remonflrated to the
government. This brought fome blame upon
the contrivers of this fecret correfpondence, which
his Grace fought here to ward off, as well as he
could ; modeflly requeuing in the end, that the
government would pelmit them to play out their
game, before they rejected the propofal.

His Grace's next endeavour is to take off Mr
Walpole** apprehenfions, that the attempt, and
much more the execution of fuch a project,
" would raife animofities at home, produce de-
*c clamations in pulpits, controverfies in pam-
" phlets, debates in parliament, revive the diftinc-
4C tions of high and low among Churchmen, and
" terrify and provoke the Diffenters." (w)

What his Grace fays on the part of the pulpit,
fhall be confidered by and by. And as for the
prefs, he reminds Mr Walpole* that, " moft vi-
" rulent pamphlets, published daily both againft
" Church and State, gave the government no
" terror at all." (#) Not fo much indeed, I dare
fay, as his Grace thought they fhould have given,
judging herein by his own feelings j no man perhaps,
of his Ration, having ever been more terrified and
difquieted by pamphlets and letters in News-pa
pers on Church matters, than the late Dr Seeker.
Of the fact however, or of its effects, he was far
from being fo competent a judge as Mr Walpole,
who was very fenfible, that it would not follow,

becaufe

(w) Page 20. (*) Page 21.

C 77 1

becaufe the miniftry were not affected by falfe and
invidious charges from the prefs, refpecting their
political conduct in mere ftate affairs, that they
would be equally unaffected, when fo fevere a
ftroke upon the religious liberties of the Colonies,
as the executing the Epifcopizing fcheme would
be, mould be objected to them.

But if Mr Wai-pole faw his Grace's weaknefs in
this reflection, much more would he be fcandalized
when, to take off all his apprehenfions of what might
happen in parliament, he found his Grace intimat
ing, that " there feemed no neceflity that this af-
" fair fhould ever come into parliament.(jy)"

By this circumftance, the ftatesman would dif-
cover the man and his communication, and whence
he derived his principles. He would recollect too,
that parliament had more than once taken a retro-
fpect of mjnifterial meafures, adopted without its
fanftion ; and would never be more likely to doit,
than when fuch meafures feemed to tend to raife
feuds and animofities, difgufl and difcontent, in
places where the commercial interefls of Great
Britain are fo much concerned, as in the Colonies.
And if, in the progrefs of their inquiries, itfhould
appear, that the Adminiftration had been prefled
into this fervice by the importunity of the Bifhops
in general (who have all been, according to his
Grace, equally defirous of eftablifhing Epifcopacy
in the Colonies, from the Revolution, to the date

of

O) Page zu

[ 78 ]

of his Letter) few would wonder, if it fliould be
refolved, that " Epifcopal power is a great griev-
" ance to this nation, and that it muft rife to an
«' equal height wherever Bifhops are."

His Grace, however, could put Mr IVal^ole in
the way of compofing thefe ftirs even in parliament.
" The Adminiftration," fays his Grace, "will
41 eafily quiet fuch of the Members as are their
" friends ;" namely, by threatning to take away
their places or their penfions, or by promifing
them to fuch of their friends as had them not.
" The Tories muft be forBifhops, if it be only to
" preferve their own credit." And confequently,
forBifhops inverted with all the powers which tory
principles afcribe as appendages to .the office :
for it would beimpoffible to keep their credit with
their party, by confenting to the fending out Bi-
fhops with that limited, low-church jurisdiction,
which his Grace off efts only to defire. " And the
" remainder will probably find themfelves too in-
" confiderable to ftir." The remainder ; that is
to fay, all the faithful reprefentatives of the people,
who are neither to be corrupted by the adminiftra-
tion, nor infected by thofe pernicious principles
of religion and government, which have been in
times pad fo pernicious to the rights and liberties
of the Britifh fubject, and fo dangerous to that il-
luftrious fucceflion of proteftant Princes, under
whofe Government only we can hope to enjoy
them. Excellent Patriot ! excellent Archpaftor of

a free

[ 79 3

a free Proteftant people ! who for the fake of mag
nifying a mere Ecclefiaftical Office, no way effcn-
tial to the faith or praftice of Evangelical Chris
tianity, would flifle the influence, on which the
prefervation of the religion and liberties of his
country chiefly depends !

It remains to confider " the only danger,"
which, according to his Grace, " is left, viz. that of
" alarming or provoking the body of the DifTen-
" ters(z)." Whom he diftinguifhes into, " a
" few bufy, warm men;" and fuch as, " after ar-
*' gu*lng properly with them, have owned that they
" had little or nothing to object againft appoint-
" ingBifhops inPlantations of theEpifcopalCom-
" munion^)." And among the latter he names
Dr Avery, and Dr Samuel Chandler.

What "Dr Chandler might fay to Dr Seeker, is of
little confequence : It can hardly be faid, that Dr
Chandler fpoke the fenfe of the body of theDtflen-
ters, when it is fo well known, that his connexion
with that Prelate was far from adding to his efti-
mation among them. He is not at prefent at
hand to anfwer for himfelf. Poflibly fomebody
might be found, who is able to anfwer for him.
Be that as it may, I (hall not prefume either to
accufe him, or to apologize for him.

Dr^z^ry's juflification is upon a lefs precarious
footing. It is well known to ibme yet living, that
he was a principal mover of the application to the

Miniftry,

(«} Page 22. (a] Ibid.

C 8° 1

Miniftry, about the time this Letter of Dr Seeker**
was written, to lay afide the project of fending
Bifhops to America. If I am not mifinformed, he
had the honour of conferring with fome of his
Majefty's Minifters on the fubject, and gave them
unanfvverable reafons, why a fcheme fo likely to
produce difturbances in the Colonies, fhould be
laid a fide. "What he is here reprefented to have ac
knowledged to the Archbifhop, is in the higheii
degree improbable. He was not a man to be over
awed by the folemnity, or cajoled by the arTefted
civility of an Archbifhop. He was liberal in his
fentiments, and generoufly open and unreferved in
expreffing them upon all proper occafions. His
conduct, in all his tranfactions, was inflexibly up
right, and far exalted above all narrow, felfifh,
and finifter views. No man knew all this better
than the late Archbifhopto/l^r ; and if this Letter
is not fpurious, it is not an impofiible fuppofition,
that one motive of its fleeping fo long in his Grace's
clofet, might be, the danger of having it crofs-
examined and confronted by the teftimony of fo
refpectable a character.

Speaking of the oppofition to this Epifcopizing
project, which might be apprehended from the
body of Difienters, his Grace delivers himfelf as
follows.

" And indeed there is ao modefty in faying,
" we, who are not of the Eftablifhed Church, de-
" mand as a matter of ftrict juftice, the full ex-

" ercife

[ 8. ]

*c ercile of our religion here, but at the fame time
44 infift that the King's epifcopal fubjefts in America ,
44 with whom we have nothing at all to do, lhall
44 not, even in thofe provinces where they are the
44 eftablifhed Church, have the full exercife of
44 theirs (3)."

It is pleafant enough to hear his Grace talk of
modefty, while he is giving fuch a reprefentation as
this. What would his Grace have thought of his
having the full exercife of his religion, in cafe he
had not been permitted to enjoy the preferments
he once held in commendam, without firft receiv
ing the communion amongft the Diflenters ? It is
made a part of his merit in the Biographia Britan-
nica that he never did communicate with them,
even while he appeared to belong to theirChurch;
(f) whence it may eafily be conjectured, how un
palatable fuch a condition would have been to him
when he was Bilhop of Oxford. Would not his
Lordftnp have thought, that hisMajefty's fubjects
vh America, while not burdened with any fuch teft,
would have had a fuller exercife of their religion,
than his Lordfhip, even without the ceremony of
confirmation ? Can a Man be faid to have the full
exercife of his religion, who is excluded from the
natural and equitable rights of a good fubjec"l, un-
lefs he will conform to a mode of religious worfhip
which he thinks to be wrong, and which fome of
his brethren have thought to be even idolatrous!

F It

(1} Page 23. {<•) Article BUTLER (JOSEPH),

[ 82 ]

It is plain, his Grace never made this cafe of the
DifTenters his own, and that he gave Mr. Walpcle
only a copy of his countenance, when he told himy
a little below, that, " he fhould have been a moft
" hearty and zealous advocate for theDifltnters,"
in a cafe where they happened not to want his affif-
tance, and that, " from his love of religious liber-
" ty (d ) i" when he never moved a finger to relieve
them in a cafe where, if he knew what religious
liberty meant, he muft have known how jujlly they
think they have it not, and where an advocate of
his Grace's ftation and character would have been
of the greateft fervice.

There are in this fhort period, no lefs than two
other mifreprefentations. For, i. His Grace could
not produce any legal authority for faying, that the
Epifcopal Church of England^ is the eftallified
Church, in any of the American Provinces. 2. The
King's Epifcopal fubjects in America^ were not
they, with whom our domefticDiflenters, had to do
in this cafe. It was their concern for, and their
defire to preferve to the Americans of their own
Antiepifcopal perfuafion, the full exercife of iheir
civil and religious rights^ (which they apprehended
upon good grounds, might be encroached upon,
by the admifiion of Bifhops into any of the Ame
rican Provinces) that occafioned their vigilance at
the time referred to. They knew the hardfhip of
thofe legal difabiliues under which they themfelves

Jay
{</) Page 23.

lay at hom6. They had good reafon to believe
that the influence of the eftabliihed Hierarchy
contributed to continue this grievance. Their
Brethren in America were as yet free from it, and
if Bifhops were let in among them, and particu
larly, under the notion of prefiding in eftablijhed
Epifcopal Churches, there was the higheft proba
bility, they would take their precedents of Go
vernment and Difcipline from the Eftablifhmenc
in the Mother Country, and would probably ne
ver be at reft, till they had eftablifhed it on the
bafis of an exclufive Teft. They knew their
American brethren thought on this fubject, juft
as they themfelves did. They knew how cauti-
cujly the projectors of the plan covered their march
from all the Colonies, but their own confidants*
They knew that* without their interpofition, the
arrival of a Bimop in America would probably be
the firft notice the Colonifts would have of his
appointment at home. They were aware of the
alarm this would give them, and of the difagree-
able confequences of their oppofitionj with refpedl
to the Government. They wifely therefore, and
like good patriots, fignified their apprehenfions to
the Government, and ftrengthened them with fuch
proofs, as entirely convinced the Miniftry, how
much the public peace and welfare depended upoa
the fuppreiTion of this pernicious project.

In this tranfa&ion I have good grounds to fay,
that Dr Awry was a principal actor and advifer 5

F 2 and

I 84 ]

and would his Grace have ventured, in his life
time, to rank the Dr among, u the few bufy\ 'warm
" men^ who only affefted to fpeak in the name of
" the whole ? " or among thofe who cppoied the
Epifcopizing fcheme through, " a wantonnefs of
c* fpirit, or an oftentatious fondnefs of ufing their
" influence with great perfons, to grieve the good
" Bifhop of Oxford and his partizans, without
•* ferving themfelves ?" (*),

What muft their Colony-brethren have thought
of the Diilenters at home, had the latter fuffered
them to be taken by furprize, and a meaiure
forced upon them, to which, if they had not loft
all memory of the firft migration of their anceftors
from Old England, they muft have the utmoft
averfion ? What muft every difinterefted Englifh-
man have thought of them, if, pofTefied as they
were of the ienfe of the Colonies, they fhould,
out of a punctilio of complaifance to a few fuch
lufy^warm men as the B— pofO— d^ have
quietly fuffered a religious war to be kindled in the
bowels of America, between the Non-epifcopalians
and the Members of the Church of England^ when
they had it in their power to prevent it ?

But I fliall venture to go ftill farther. Many of
the Colqnifts of the Church of England are the
defcendants of fome of the firft fettrers, who pro-
fefTed Church principles, and praftifed the modes
of worfhip eftabliflied in Old England^ in their

own
M P^ 24.

own houfes, when they could not have a Minifter
to officiate among them. Yet thefe were driven
from their native land, by Epifcopal Difcipline,
merely becaufe they could not conform in every
thing. They left however, their principles and
practices to their pofterity, fome of whom, to this
hour, attend the Miniftry of the Epifcopal Mif-
fionaries. But as their fathers left them likevvife
memorials of their own particular fufferings from
Bifhops, they are no more in love with American
Epifcopacy than their anceflors were with Englifh
Prelacy. To fome of thefe, the idea of a Bifliop
upon the fpot, was as difgufting as to theNoncon-
formifts themfelves, and it is now well known,
that when they were folicited to join fome others
in reprefcnting to the Society how much Rifhops
were wanted in the Colonies, their anfwer was,
« that they were well fatisfied with the means
" they had of worfhipping God according to the
« Liturgy, nor did they defire any thing more."

Among other uneafmefles apprehended by Mr
Walfole, as the probable effect of appointing
American Bifliops, one was, " that fuch a mea-
" fure would produce declamations in Pulpits ;
" and revive the diftinction of High and Low
" among Churchmen (/)."

To this anxiety, his Grace adminiflers the fol
lowing foporific. " Now amongft the Clergy, I
" conceive it can make no difpute, for every Man

F 3 « of

(/) Page 20.

[ 86 ]

ce of character amongft them doth, and muft wifli
" it fuccefs." His Grace fhould have added,
" and every man amongft them who wifhes it
" fuccefs, is and muft be a Man of character ;"
and then the refult muft have been, that every one
who did not vvifh the projedl to fucceed, was a re
probate, a Map of no cbaratfer.

But might not ^liWalpole have fuggefted, that
difputes were moft likely to be raifed by Men of nc
character ? His Grace was free enough to confefs,
that, " if the project were brought upon the car-
" pet, and the adminiftration were to oppofe it,
" fome Clergy men (Jome of tbefeMen of character}
«« might be tempted to fay indecent things of
" them;" and I pray, how much lefs fcrupulous
may we fuppofe Men pf no charadter, who fhoulc}
not wilh the project fuccefs, would have been, in
cafe the adminiftration had efpoufed it ? Either way
then, we fee declamations from the pulpit, and
difputes between Clergymen of cbaratttr^ and
Clergymen of no character, would have been un
avoidable, had the affair come upon the carpet.
The beft way therefore, Mr Wal^ole would think,
would be to keep it off" the carpet.

But would this have fatisfied thefe Clergymen
cf character, with his Grace at their head ? Let us
hear his Grace upon this queftion. " We indeed
" do not threaten, if we are difregarded. But they
«c [the Diflenters] have no more right to threaten
«' than we : nor need they be feared if they do.

" Their

** Their tbreatnings have been veryfafely flighted,
£< in a point which they have much more at heart,
46 I mean the Teft : and fo they may in this (£).'*

It is, I think, pretty certain, (if we may credit
fome other parts of his Grace's Letter) that the
Clergy of ckaraffer^ particularly the Bi mops, ne
ver ceafed to defire, and we mud fuppofe, to en
deavour, thatBifhops mould be eftablifhed in Ame
rica, from the revolution to the day of the date
of his Letter to Mr Walpole. During this whole
interval, thefe defires have been fo far dJfregarded,
that in his Grace's language, the affair never came
upon the carpet. If it mould, >and the adminiftra-
tion were to oppofe it, " fome of thofe Clergymen
" of character, who wiih it fuccefs, might, in his
" Grace's opinion, be tempted to fay indecent
" things of them."

Now, in my ideas, this has fomething the air
of a threat, in cafe the adminiftration mould not
behave as thefe clergymen of char a 51 er would have
them.

However his Grace would have it believed, that
mere difregard, even for fo long a time as fixty
years, had not produced the lead murmur, that
could be called a menace. But where are the mor
tals whofe patience, after fo long an interval, may
not be worn out ? How far this was the cafe, with
theBifhop tf Oxford at leaft, in the year 1750, we
lhall fee prefently.

F 4 In

(g) Page 25.

[ 88 ]

In the mean time, it mud be a pleafant confi-
deration to Mr Walpole, that the prejudices of the
Jacobites and the Tories againft the King and his
miniftry, might be allayed by appointing Bifhops
for America, as his Grace fuggefts(£) *, adding,
that, " till thefe people are reconciled, our domef-
*c tic affairs will never be on a firm and eafy foot-
ic ing." Indeed he gives Mr IValpole no great
encouragement to hope that/w^ inftances of kin d-
ftefs, would work any great or fpeedy reformation
among them, " but," fays his Grace, " fome
*' good effect they mud produce ; and perfeve-
*4 ranee in a due regimen will at length compleac
** the cure (i).*'

Which expedient would not be unhappily hit
off, but for one objection on the part of the friends
of his Majefty and his Government. For as this
American Epifcopacy feems to have been, in his
Grace's ideas, one principal ingredient in that due
regimen which was to compleat the cure of Jaco-
bitifm and Toryifm, a perfeverance in the admi-
niftration of it, might fugged the necefiky ofin-
creafing the dofe from time to time, till it fhould
be totally modelled, not only to the tafte, but to
the constitution of the patients, i. e. till it came to
be a perfectly Lattd^can Epifcopacy ; which would
be an inftance of kindnefs to thefe prejudiced people,
to which, though it might be to his Grace's palate,

the
($; Page 25. (/) Page 26,

the friends to the Proteftant fettlement, would, no
doubt, have confiderable objections.

Thus far by way of friendly innuendo, of what
might happen in cafe of a refufal. In what fol
lows, his Grace fpeaks a little plainer.

" On the other hand," fays his Grace, " lap-
" prehend, the rejection of this propofal will do
" the Government by far more hurt amongft the
" Churchmen, than it can pofiibly do them good
" amongft the Diflenters. When the Bijhops are
" afked about it, as they frequently are by their
" Clergy and others, what muft they anfwer ?
" We cannot with truth exprefs difapprobation of
" it, or indifference to it. If we did, we fhould
" be thought unworthy of our ftations. Muft
« we then be forced to fay, that we are all fatis-
*c fied of the abfolute fitnefs, the great advantages,
«« the perfect fafety of the thing, and have re-
" peatedly prefled for it-, but cannot prevail?
tc Would not this both fadly diminifh our ability
" of ferving the Government, by (hewing how
" little credit we have with it •, and make very
" undefueable imprefTions on many minds, con-
(' cerning the King, and thofe that are in authority
" under him j as incapable of being won by the
" arguments or intreaties of thofe, who have fo
" ftrong a zeal for them,, to do an innocent favour
" to the Church ? Still, if we cannot fucceed by
" refpedful applications, I know it is our duty to
" make the beft of the matter, and not difturb

*« the

[ 90 ]

" the pwblic welfare, becaufe, in this particular,
cc we are unable to promote it. Iwouldfpeak a$
" gently of the affair as ever I could , where there
" was danger of doing harm ; though Ifpeakfo ear-
46 neftly^ where I would fain hope to do good. But
"no mildnefs or prudence will wholly or nearly pre-
" vent the abovementioned conferences (£)."

And what are the abovementioned confluences ?
Even as much hurt to Government as can arife, on
the one hand, from a diminution of the credit of
the Bifhops, and confequently of their ability of
ferving the Government ; and on the other, from
the refentment of the Clergy, on the difappoint-
ment of a project on which all of them, of any
character? have fet their hearts. And as his Grace
apprehends, that this will do the government more
hurt than any good the rejection of it willdo them
among the Diflenters can make amends for, we mud
conclude that it would be at the peril of the Govern
ment to oblige the one and difoblige the other.

" We do not threaten, fays his Grace, when
" we are difregarded." — " Why no, my Lord,*'
might Mr Walpole have anfwered, " not in the
** terms of a Cogent -Gar den bully, your Lordfhip
«' only gives us civil'y to underftand, what a neft
" of wafps your epifcopal reprefent aliens can raiie
*c about our ears, if we do not behave like good
*fc boys ; and how rrurh lefs formidable the threat-
** nings of the DiiTenters would be, than \hz gentle 9

" mild,
{k} Page 26, 27,

i* mild, and prudent re monft ranees of our own
" fpiritual fathers, with a numerous clergy ar
« their beck."

Did the DifTenters, when foliciting the repeal of
the Tefl act, carry their menaces farther than this ?
So his Grace thought fit to \.t\\MxWal^ole^ remind
ing him at the fame time, that their threatnings,
on that occafion, had been very fafely flighted (/).

I am afraid, Mr Walpole would be inclined to
queftion the truth of this reprefentation ; and pro
bably, had he thought his Grace's Letter worth
his notice, would have told him, that the appli
cation of the Diffenters to have the Teft repealed,
fo far as it related to his Majefty's Proteftant fbb-
jects, was not flighted. The anfwers given them
were refpeftful, and they dutifully acquiefced in
the reafons that were affigned, why their requefl
could not be complied with. This is meant of
the Body of the DiiTenters, which, as his Grace
has well obferved, is not to be denominated from
a few bufy^ warm men among them.

It is upon record, that the wife and good King
William, was defirous to oblige the DiiTenters in
this point, without any particular application from
them. It is equally well known, that the two ex
cellent Princes, GEORGE I. and GEORGE II. were
no lefs difpofed to comply with the feveral appli
cations made on that behalf by the DifTenters ; and
fuch like wife were the fentiments of Mr Waif ok and

his

(/) Page 25.

his noble brother; and fuch will ever be the fen-
timents of all true Patriots, and well wiftiers to
the Proteflant religion, and the Proteflant govern
ment of this country.

There were indeed tbreatningson thofe occafions,
which were not flighted, threatnings from the
high-church party, many of them, in fubftance,
though not exactly in ftile, the fame with thefe
gentle and friendly admonitions of the Bifhop of Ox
ford. Thefe made due imprejffions upon the dates-
men of thofe days, whofe experience had taught
them, that it was fafer to flight the threatnings
of any fort of men, rather than thofe of an inceni-
ed and vindictive high-church clergy. Very few,
whoeither remember the tranfadlions of thofe times,
or have read the hiftory of them, will think, that
thefe latter threatnings had a Ids fhare in fupport-
ing the Teft, than either the expediency of the law
or a mere contempt for the Diffenters.

I have now gone through his Grace's Letter to
Mr Walpole, on the fubject of American Bifhops :
and the remaining queftion is only this, Whether
his Grace was capable of writing a Letter fo full
of grofs miftakes, inconfiftencies, artful mifrepre-
fentations, and unmanly calumnies, to a States
man, who, from the nature gf his fituation, was
fo capable of detecting and confuting them. The
alternative is obvious. If the Letter is fpurious,
the forgers of it are unpardonable, not only on
account of a bafe impofition upon the public, but

for

C 93 ]

for traducing the memory of a great man, who
departed fo lately full of days and honour, and in
the odour of fanctity. If the Letter is genuine,
his Encomiafts muft have been egregioufly mif-
taken, who have afcribed to him, not only emi
nent abilities in the province of authorfhip, but
an uncommon meafure of judgment, candour,
moderation, and integrity in the adminiftration of
his high office ; virtues and endowments which
the writer of fuch a Letter muft have pofiHTed in
a very moderate degree.

The whole cafe is now before the public : and
if any one fhould be inclined to think that his
Grace hath been treated in thefe papers with more
freedom than is confident with a decent regard to
his Grace's ftation and character ; let it be con-
fidered, that if this Letter is a forgery, thefe Re
marks upon it are a full j unification of his Grace
from the imputations which are necefTarily fug-
gefted by the contents of it. If it is genuine, be
it underftood, that "Truth and Right ecu ftiefs are
no refpeclers of perfons, are of no party, nor at
all more attached to the Mitre and Lawn, than to
the Sackcloth and Afhes of a pretended penitent.
And be it farther noticed, that he who contrives
to fpread bad principles, and to recommend mif-
chievous projects after his demife, which he does
not chufe to publifh and avow in his life-time,
is no longer intitied to the benefit of that common
maxim, De mortuis nil wji bovum.

POSTSCRIPT.

C 95 ]

POSTSCRIPT.

JL H A T it may not be faid that mere preju
dice hath prevailed fo far in drawing up thefe
Remarks, as to leave no room for juftice ; I here
declare my entire concurrence with his Grace in
one maxim adopted by him, at page 6. however
unfortunate I may think him in his application of
it to the promotion of American Epifcopacy.

The maxim is this. Againft things evidently
right and ufeful, no dangers ought to be pleaded,
but fucb as are 'very probable and great. His Grace
faw the reftiiude and ufefulnefs of fettling Bifhops
in our American Colonies in fo flrong a point of
light, and the dangers which would attend it, at
fo great a diftance, and in fo diminutive a fize,
that he ventured this aphorifm with all fecurity,
nothing doubting, but the public would readily
take his word for one member of his premifles, as
a confummate Divine, and for the other, as a

Prelate

[ 96 ]

Prelate of great moderation and /twenty, which
would intitle him to his conclufion of courfe.

There were however times and occafions,
when and where this maxim made very little im-
preffion upon his Grace, and when and where the
application of it, in the opinion of many ferious
and thinking Chrifiians, was full as appofhe, as
it was in the cafe of American Bifhops.

It is well known, that feveral very important
objections have been made to fome particulars
in our eftablifhed forms ; that alterations and
amendments in thefe have been fuggefled by learn
ed and confcientious men, both among the clergy
and the laity ; and that they who have folicited
fuch amendments, have demonftrated, to the fatis-
f action of all capable and difmterefted judges, that
fuch amendments would be not only right and ufe-
/*/, but 'void of all danger ', except from the oppo-
fition of thofe, who ought to be the firft to pro
mote them.

How flood his Grace affected to thefe alterations
and amendments ? Even juft as his Grace, in this
Letter, reprefents the DifTenters at home, and the
Non-conforming Colonies abroad, to be affected
towards his project of epifcopizingAmVtf, warm
and bufy and zealous to difappoint every thing tend
ing to encourage them, and tbreatning the public
with dolorous confequences, if any of the feverai
reformations propofed, mould take place.

For

[ 97 ]

For this purpofe his Grace's agents were fet to
work in every quarter, and having once more re
vived the ridiculous clamour of the danger of the
Church, they were not afhamed to reprefent the
remonftrants on the behalf of a reformation, as aim
ing to root up the foundations of the eftablifhment ;
as, feekzng, under the pretence of amendment^ to
break loofe from all inftitutions and forms ; as pro-
pofmg to fetfire to the whole edifice^ becaufefome mi
nute farts of it are not 'perfectly adapted to the reft ;
and laftly, as concurring with thofe fons of licenti-
cufnefs, who think that laws are fuperfluous t kings ?
and that civil focieties were injlituted to be torn to
pieces by difcords(a).

DrMarkba?ny Dean ofCbrift's Church, of whofe
oratory this is a fpecimen, could hardly be uncon-
fcious that he had here employed the figure Hyper
bole with great freedom. But he would take it
for granted his audience would underftand him,
and particularly one of them, who had already
apprifed the world how much utility 9 in cafes of
this nature, had the advantage of truth.

It was honeft enough in him, however, to tell
the company firft, and afterwards fo many of his
readers as underftand Latin, where he learned his
knack. For he immediately fubjoins, that, " it
" was hardly pofllble for him, or any one elfe to
" deal in fuch matters, without calling to mind

G •< that

(a) See Dr Markham's Oratiuncula, at the end of his
Cancio ad C!erumt before the Convocation, Jan. 25. 1769,

^ who among our Prelates had obtained
" the fovereignty, and by whofe death, we grieve
«< for thzdimimjbed dignity of our Church." A
pretty compliment, by the way, to the furvivors ;
to which, left he ihould not be underftood, he adds
a little afterwards, " the Church would have a
** great lofs of fuch a man in her moft flourifhing
" times, but much more in her prefent penury /"

What effect this petulant infult might have up
on the venerable body to which it was addreffed,
I fhall not prefume to guefs ; but I confefs, when
I recollect, even without looking into the Court
calendar, ten or a dozen names who were either
atlually or virtually prefent on that occafion, and
who are far from being overvalued in point of
abilities, by being put in companion with the late
Archbifhop Seeker ^ my refentment is provoked,
and I am unavoidably urged to examine upon what
grounds this unjuit preference is given to the Ora
tor's Hero and grand Exemplar.

« He was, faith Dr Markbam, a ftrenuous
** \jircfugn at or~\ both of our faith and difcipline."
OUR faith and difcipline; that is, the faith and
difcipline of the Church of England. The idea
of a Gladiator, is not quite fo fuitable to the cha
racter of a defender of the chriftian faith and dif
cipline : and the plain nfeaning of this encomium
is, that his Grace was an obftinate maintainer of
whatfoever was efiablijhed* right or wrong •, whe
ther agreeable to the Gofpel of Chriit, or not.

However,

[ 99 ]

However, to make his Grace look as like a good
chriftian and a good proteftant as he could, he hath
added , ubique tamen fine actrbitate diffentiens •,
which I know not well how to render, as, zfirenuous
champion diflenting from his adverfary without bit-
ternefs^ exhibits a difcordancy in one and the fame
character, not very eafy to be conceived : unlefs we
may be allowed to fuppofe that his Grace's propug-
natorial fpirit, was gloiTed over with an infidious
mildnefs, by way of a mafk, till he could take his
adverfary at a proper advantage. For if his Grace's
mildnefs and moderation, were either truly natu
ral, or truly chriftian difpofnions, it is impofiible
Dr Markbam mould be put in mind of Archbi-
fhop Seeker ', in the midft of the bittereft railings,
mifreprefentations, and even fcurrilities, thrown
out againft thofe who attempted only to reform his
Grace's beloved eflablifhment of faith and difci*
pline.

Having done with his Grace's controverfial
character, Dr Markbam proceeds to give an ac
count of his literary abilities, where, having allowed
that, " his Grace's ftile was not the moft polifhed,'*
he infifts, that, <c no one ever outftripped him,
*' in copioufnefs, method, and gravity."

Did the Doctor never hear of 'Thomas Aquinas ?

However, thefe are excellencies it muft be owned j

but excellencies of which every laborious compiler

of a good common-place book may equally boaft.

G 2 This

This mediocrity in his Grace's proficiency as a
writer, is the more furprizing, in that we are told,
at the end of the next paragraph, that, ''there
" never was a man of leifure who laboured more
ct in literary ftudies, than his Grace did in a molt
" bufy flation."

As Dr Markham^ no doubt, expects to be be
lieved, we will for once, take his word for this
remarkable fact, and only inquire how his Grace
acquitted himfelf in his department rfbufmefs.

And here his Grace is held forth to us, as, " a
" Magiftrate^ who laid it down for a principal
" rule of his conduct, to be wanting to no part
" of his duty, and this in the midft of a multi-
" plicity of cares with which he was daily befet."

I freely acknowledge that I cannot form an
idea of a Magiftrate in the Church of Chrift,
without adding to it the idea of ufurpation. In
the Church of Antichrift^ ^Magijlrale is a neceiTary
character. His reprefentative muft, from the na
ture of his truft, be inverted with compulfivc
powers, equipped with an inquifition, and other
means of inflicting pains and penalties upon thofc
who dhTent from his particular fyftem.

It is not for the honour of Archbimop Seeker
to fuppofe that he affected Mdgiftracy in the leaft
degree •, much lefs, that, in the exercife of fuch
office, he was wanting to no fart of it ; as that
mull imply a deftre at lead to execute penal Laws

againft

[ 101 ]

againft Heretics and Schifmatics, to incapacitate
DifTenters, by impofing upon them Tefts and
Subicriptions to points of his own deviling, and
never to fuffer one of them to efcape his vigilance
when he could lay hold of him.

There is, I think, but one reafon why the
Archbifhop mould defire to be inverted with the
powers of Magiflraey. He had but poor luck in
the province of Church-champion. He was gene
rally worfted whenever he met his adverfary upon
the plain field of Controverfy, whether he chofc
to engage on Englifh ground, or went in queft
of adventures to a foreign land. At home, his
own artillery was dextroufly turned upon him (£),
Abroad, his Ligurian arts and fubterfuges were
completely defeated, merely by the dint of an
honeft heart, a good caufe, and a fkilful hand (c).
It is true in thefe conflicts, his Grace laid afide
the infignia of his order, but fome how or other,
the adverfary got a peep at his countenance through
the chinks of his vifor, and after that, there was

03 no

(6) In a fpirited and ingenious pamphlet, intided, Remarks
upon theFirft of three Letters agaznftThe Confeffional, p. 24 — 36.
N. B. The Second and Third of thefe Letters are not the Arch-
bifhop's, but the work of an every way inferior hand.

(c) See Remarks on an anonymous Trafl, intitled, AnAnfvver
to Dr Maybenvs Obfervations on the Charter and Concuft of
the Society for the Propagation of the Gofpel in foreign Parts.
By Jonathan May hew, Paftor of the Wef church in Boflan.
London, Reprinted for W. Nicoll, 1765.

[ 102 ]

no avoiding the difgrace of being vanquifhed by
caitiff knights of low degree.

It is no wonder that repeated mortifications of
this kind fhould raife a little afpiration in the
breaft of an impatient Prelate, to an office in
which he might take his amends with more ad
vantage. How far he acted, on this confideration,
in the character of a Church-magijirate^ Dr MARK-
HAM may know better than I do. But whatever
his Grace's diligence and vigilance were in this
department, it is plain, if we may believe Dr
Markbam9 he had very little fuccefs ; for the
Dr tells us, not without fome feeming regret,
that, "• there never was a time when men lived and
*< thought more according to their own judg-
" ment." Whereas, if things had proceeded pro-
fperoufly on \hzMt* gift ratical plan of faith and dif-
cipline, men ought to have lived and thought ac
cording to the judgment of Archbifhop Seeker
and Dr Mark bam.

The Doctor concludes his panegyric (which he
modeftly acknowledges to bejbort &nA jejune) with
the following flourifh of his art. ** In fome men
46 we difcern an excellent genius, and a multipli-
ct city of fcience, in others, prudence, authority,
41 probity, conftancy •, but we (hall not eafily find
tc one in whom all thefe have fo abundantly met
" together."

I have no inclination to diffecl this complication
pf excellencies ; let every qne judge of it as he

fees

fees caufe. I allow, on the one hand, that an ex
alted ftation is a great brighter^ and on the other,
that an Oxford Orator may be indulged in a little
fidion-, but his Grace's writings wzferious things,
and are a juft criterion for any one who is difpofed
to verify this accumulation of virtues and good
qualities, without looking for a parallel either a-
mong the living or the dead.

his as impoffible for me to mention an Oxford
Orator without thinking of Dr Burton d), as it was
for Dr Markbam to fcourge the advocates for re
formation, without thinking of Archbifhop Seeker,

Dr Burton takes his Grace up indeed a little late
in life, not fooner than his 28th year ; whence our
great grandchildren, reading the contents of this
panegyric in its fortieth edition, will naturally con
clude, that his Grace owed his immenfe proficiency
in onwi fcibiti (Phyfick excepted) folely to the doc
trine and difcipline of the univerfity of Oxford \ lie-
tie dreaming that he received the flighted rudiments
among the " irritable, perverfe, malignant, fediti-
" o«j, and intolerably tyrannical Puritans (e)" And
yet, as he turned out in the end, fo compleatly fur-
nifoed withimperatorial arts(f), it is not at all un
natural to fuppofe that he might have picked up

G 4 and

(d] JOHANNIS BURTON ad amicum Epiftola ; five coinmen-
tariolus THOM^E SECKER, Archiep. Cantuar. Memorize Sacer.
OXONII, E Typographeo Clar^ndoniano. 1768.

(e) Epift. p. 27, 28. {/) Page 14.

[ I04 ]

and retained fome flight maxims of Hierarchical
difcipline among thele tyrannical DiiTenters, with
whom his early connexions are not yet abfolutely
forgotten.

I am forry my time will not allow me to go
through this elaborate Epiftle, which furnifhes in
every page abundant matter for very edifying re
flections, particularly on the frailty of bigoted and
injudicious panegyrifts, who, void of every idea
of juftice, moderation, or propriety, where their
idol is to be exhibited, give occafion to thofe who
are not quite fo prone to credulity, to look farther
into a character fo bedaubed with fulfome adula
tion, than they might otherwife be difpofed to
do.

Dr Burton^ for example, holds up his Grace as
one of the -princes of Critics in Hebrew literature,
and for this he fends us to Mr Merrick's Annota
tion on the Pfalms(^). This might pafs well
enough with thofe who took Dr Burton for a
competent judge, at leaft for two or three months
after the publication of his Epiftle. But Dr
Gregory Sharpe^ having, after that interval, jfhewn
how far his Grace had waded out of his depth in
that province, the encomium now ferves for no
thing, but to give lufpicions, that there are more
of them in the pamphlet, upon equally precarious

grounds.

(g] Epift, page 6.

[ "5 J

grounds (h). Add to this, that fome fufpicions
having been raifed by the freedom of his Grace's
fpeculations on revealed religion in the earlier part
of his life, nothing could be more injudicious
than to attempt to embellim his Grace's character,
by fending the reader to a few infipid cavils
againft fome ftriking parts of a very learned and
MG Defence of CHRISTIAN irr(i).

Again, it was objected to his Grace, that he
was out of meafure provoked at every attempt to
amend or reform our Ecclefiaftical fyftem in thofe
particulars where it is mod exceptionable : that
whenever fuch propofals appeared, he was out of
all patience, fummoning his Myrmidons from
every quarter, and oftentimes lending his own
hand to the confutation of thefe Innovators and
Schifmatics. This, numbers of his Grace's ad
mirers would never believe, fuppofing that his
C*race, who had profited fo much by his own
free examination, could not be fo violently embit
tered himfelf, or afford his patronage and counte
nance to thofe who were, againft men who had an
equal right to judge for themfelves. But Dr
Burton foon put the matter out of doubt, by ac
knowledging

(b) Vid. A Letter to the Right Reverend the Lord Bifhop
of Oxford> from the Matter of the Temple, containing fome
Stri&ures made by his Grace the late Archbiihop of C ;•.,.? fr bury,
in the Reverend Mr Merrick's Annotations on the Pialms.
London, 1769.

(«') See the Remarks cited above, Note (b] p.' 87.

knowledging in one place, his Grace for the au
thor of the feeble Anfwer to Dr May hew (&), and,
in another, by divulging, that his Grace not only
undertook the office of propugnator himfelf, againft
thejlanders of Schifmaiics and Innovator -j, but ufed
the 'vicarious adiftaace of others who fought under
his ftandard(/).

It is true, the Dr fays, he took the fame
courfe with the calumnies of the papifts. It might
be fo ; but the evidence here is a little obfcure : in
the other cafe it is clear and decifive.

It has been often aflerted, and as often denied,
that his Grace kept a record of clerical delinquents,
commonly called a black book, in which were re-
giftred the names and offences of thofe who had the
misfortune to fall under his Grace's difpleafure ;
and that the better to detect defaulters, his Grace
had his fpies and emiffaries properly diftributed to
give the necefifary information — Dr Burton feems
to give credit to the affirmative, by alluring us, that
his Grace, " animadverted upon every thing relat-
" ing to the Clergy ; that he had his internuntii^
" and ufed the miniftry of others in his difquifi-
" tions ; fought out and noted everything; and
" finally, digefted bis difeoveries into a kind of Fajli^
** by way of a provincial hiftory, for the ufe of his
" fuccefibrs(^)." It would be (trange if there

mould

(/?) Epift. page 28. (/) Ibid, p. 21.

(m) Page 25.

i 107 1

fliould not be one column of this calendar appro
priated to the carbone notandi.

But our greateft obligations to Dr Burton arife
from his candid and undifguifed account of the
motives of his Grace's zeal for American Epifco-
pacy. His Grace, it feems, underftood by his
books, that Epifcopal government was of apofto-
lical original : He perceived likewife [how, it is
not faid, perhaps by wftinff] that there was a kin
dred connexion between Epifcopacy and Monarchy,
(n] And with thefe convictions upon his mind,
" what wonder, faith Dr Burton, that our A.rch-
" prelate mould favour the pious defires of thofe
" Americans, who having embraced the faith
*c and difcipline of the Church of England, covet-
" ed to have epifcopal adminiftrations more with-
" in their reach ?" This was kind and compaf-
fionate !

But the misfortune is, that the pofthumous pub
lication of his Grace's Letter to Mr IValpole, hath
made it queftionable, whether thefe motives did
not work confiderably towards their effect, with
out thefe pious defires, and long before his Grace
was poiTefied of the Archprelacy. That Dr Bur
ton was well acquainted with his Grace's motives
for promoting Epifcopal government in America,
there can be no doubt, after his commerce of
friendfhip with his Grace, for more than forty
years (0). But fome pofiibly may fufpect, that

the

[n] Page 26. (o) Page 4.

C 108 ]

the Dr knew little more of their operation than
merely the oftenfiUe parts of it.

And yet from his afiigning, or at lead intimat
ing a third motive for his Grace's zeal in this Ame
rican bufmefs, I am apt to think Dr Burton knew
more of this matter than he thought fit to divulge.

It feems our domeftic DifTenters, forming their
judgment upon Dr Seeker's gentlenefs and lenity,
and his earneftnefs to fupport the right of tolera
tion (not without fome retrofpect, it is likely, to
his more early principles and connexions) expected
his Grace would at a proper time, " betray to
" them the privileges and authority of the Church
" of England(py

There was no way fo effectual to convince them
of their miftake, as to difcover his ardent zeal to
epifcopize their brethren in America. What other
methods his Grace might take to undeceive them,
it is not material to inquire. According to Dr
Burton^ it muft have been this circumftance in his
Grace's conduct which chiefly opened their eyes,
as it derived upon his Grace their moft furious
refentment.

This being the cafe, we have here a third mo
tive for his Grace's zeal for American Epifcopacy,
diftinct from Apoftoiical and Monarchical relations,
inducing a fufpicion, that the impious averfwn of
fome to American Epifcopacy, might have as great

a (hare
(/>) Page 27.

[ *°9 1

a fliare in his Grace's attempts to eflablifh it, as
the pious deftres of others,

If it were worth the while, one might pick out
abundant matter of amufement, from a compari-
fonof DvBurton'sElogy with that of Dr Markbam's.
Both of them feem to have been confcious, that
the tranfmitting the mofl unexceptionable charac
ters to pofterity, without fome alloy of human
infirmity, hath given occafion to the inquifitive
reader oftentimes to queftion the good faith of the
hiftorian, or the fmcerity of the panegyrift. They
feem however not to be agreed, where the n^evi in
Archbifhop^^r's portrait mould be inferted.

Dt Markbam is inclined to place the chief im
perfection in his Grace's ftile. But this Dr Bur
ton cannot be fuppofed to allow -, having fubmit-
ted his own valuable labours to his Grace's polifli-
ing hand, which, according to the Dr, performed
this office with the utmoft accuracy (q).

Dr Markbam, again, thinks, that, " the chief
duty of Magiftracy^ is to apply, " with diligence
" to the ordering thofe bufinefles which occur in
" the daily courfe of things ;" and in this article,
the Dr affirms, that the Archbifhop, " in the
" multiplicity of cares with which he was dif-
" traded, negleded nothing."

But Dr Burton is of another opinion ; he requires
in a Magiftrate an imperious objllnacy and arrogance,
in which, according to him, his Grace was ex
tremely

(?) Epift. page 30.

[ no J

tremely defective ; and informs us, that, had his
Grace exercifed his authority to the full, and not
giveaway to the times, he would have much more
effectually provided for the common good. " For
" had this Prince of Ecclefiaftics exerted himfelf,
44 he might, according to Dr Burton, (in con-
44 junction with his Majefty, both of them acting
" as the avengers and fatellites of defpifed and
46 violated Religion) have totally defeated that
" hundred- headed beait, Impiety, which paraded
44 with impunity among almofl all ranks of men."
And he gives us no oblcure intimations, that had
he been in his Grace's feat, matters would have
gone much better ; that is to fay, " Authority
4fc would have been reftored to the Laws, its pro--
44 per honour to piety, reverence to the Ecclefiaf-
44 tical order, nor, perhaps, would the Americans
" have been deprived of an Hierarchy (r)." Such
is the courage and fpirit of thofe who breathe the
atmofphere of wbolefome feverities !

This lenity it is, that Dr Burton exhibits as the
late Archbifhop's grand foible ; taking care how
ever to inform us, that, " it was not fo much the
44 effect of t\\Q fentiments or the will of the man,
44 as of a certain political necejjltytf. the times (5).*'
In which, I am apt to believe, few people who
knew his Grace, will difagree with him.

Such are the encomiums of the Doctors, Bur
ton and Markham, who, by their officious inter-

pofition,
(r) Epiit. page 35, 36. (s) Page 36.

[ I" ]

poficion, may be fairly faid to have left their Hero
in a much worfe condition than they found him,
and (to borrow an expreffion from the celebrated
Junius} " to have injured him by their afliftance."
On this charge of lenity, however, I am of
opinion, a willing advocate might find fomething
to fay for his Grace. There certainly were times
and occafions when he was by no means defective
in this arrogance of Magiftracy required by Dr
Burton. And I will only add, that it would be
to his Grace's honour, if it could be proved, that,
in thofe inflances, he was leis influenced by his
own temper and principles, than by the counfels
and irrigation of fuch men as thefe adulatory
Orators.

FINIS.